Official Report: Tuesday 09 September 2025

Mr Gildernew: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was here yesterday when you made your remarks about announcing significant issues on the Floor of the Assembly. Following yesterday's sitting, it became clear that it was being reported that, in the Great Hall, the DUP leader indicated that the Minister for Communities will make "a significant announcement" on subregional stadia. Will the Speaker agree that, in keeping with his remarks yesterday, such a significant statement should be made in the House?

Mr Speaker: Absolutely. I agree with that.

Mr Delargy: Magee has achieved more growth in the past year than it did in the previous decade. That proves that, when we have Sinn Féin Ministers in place, Ministers who truly value the north-west and its people, the potential of our region is unmatched. Let me be unequivocal: Sinn Féin's choosing the Economy portfolio has been a game changer for regional balance and for the Magee expansion in particular. Since my party took up that office, the Magee task force has been established to develop and oversee a comprehensive plan for the campus to reach 10,000 students by 2032. Student numbers have already increased significantly and are set to reach their highest-ever level at Magee this month.

Conor Murphy and Caoimhe Archibald have driven that progress forward, and I commend them for that. I also thank Ulster University for its perseverance and continued commitment to Magee. Sinn Féin and the Department for the Economy will continue working to drive those numbers up and to reach that target, because, while the numbers are positive, they are only the beginning. Derry is turning a page to a new chapter and is looking ahead to a future that is filled with hope and prosperity. With Sinn Féin in the driving seat, pushing this matter forward and delivering real change, the north-west will reach its full potential.

Mr Frew: I have been contacted today by a number of teachers who are absolutely appalled by the stance of some of the teachers' unions and by the commentary and wording of the Justice Minister, Naomi Long.

She said there will potentially be:

I am appalled by that language and commentary from the Justice Minister, Naomi Long, and so are the teachers who have contacted me this morning. They are appalled and angered that the Justice Minister would say such a thing. I call on the Justice Minister to apologise for that slight on our teachers, who have spent many long nights and days agonising over how to support vulnerable children in their classrooms and schools. They grapple with how to support children who, because of their young years, are confused. Teachers help and support those young people, yet our Justice Minister thinks that they are bullies. Enough of that nonsense; enough of that language. I call on the Justice Minister to apologise to teachers for that slight.

We want our children to be safe in school; so do teachers. We want them to be engaged in school; so do teachers. We want them to thrive in school; so do teachers. We want parents to have the confidence that all three of those aims will be met. What do parents think when they hear the commentary of Naomi Long, the Alliance Party leader, this morning? What should they think? It is not about anyone's ideological position, whether it be Naomi Long or Eóin Tennyson; it is about the law. It is about the law that has been defined and clarified by the Supreme Court — the highest court in this country. We have a Justice Minister who baulks at that and turns her face away from it, and who slights and insults our teachers, who have done commendable work with vulnerable people over the years. I call on her again to apologise for that slight on our teachers.

Mr McMurray: I rise to speak about the prolonged closure of Tollymore National Outdoor Centre in Bryansford, just outside Newcastle. I have a personal connection in that I attended courses at the centre as a teenager and gained a number of qualifications there after university. I went on to pursue a career in the outdoors. I met my wife at the centre, so I have lots of good memories of the place. I went on to introduce my children to outdoor activities through the centre, but I cannot do that at the minute because it is closed.

My thoughts are very much with the staff who are no longer employed at the centre as a result of the closure and with all the staff who have been associated with the centre over the years. The centre was established after an atrocity in the Cairngorms, and it provided training in outdoor pursuits after other incidents, such as the Lyme Bay tragedy.

It is important to highlight the connection between the outdoors, positive mental health and physical well-being. Those connections have been well proven, and more should be done to encourage young people and adults to get outside. Not all sport is played on grass pitches that are marked out with whitewashed lines. It is important to state that.

Tollymore National Outdoor Centre was an integral part of the outdoor pursuits landscape in south Down, and, unfortunately, the number of centres in south Down has reduced substantially over the past number of years. It is imperative that Sport NI and the Department for Communities look at ways in which a model can be operated to reopen the centre as soon as possible. The centre regularly hosted community groups, local schools and schools from across Northern Ireland, and provided training courses for instructors. Its closure has a knock-on effect on the ability to take people outside safely. As we have all seen, there has been a growth in interest in outdoor pursuits and activities and the role that they can play, not least since the COVID pandemic.

Mr Burrows: On Emergency Services Day, I pay tribute to all the men and women of the emergency services across Northern Ireland. Today, I am proud to wear my Police Federation tie, which was a gift from the federation. Our emergency services do tremendous work for all the people of Northern Ireland. They put themselves in harm's way, and that comes with a great sacrifice. The things that they see, hear and smell cannot be unseen and unheard, and they live with the memories of those human beings for their entire life.

The brain never forgets trauma, and it is often triggered in the most unexpected circumstances when you come across something in daily life that suddenly takes you back. I am reminded of a colleague who was at the scene of the Omagh bomb — I know that he was very touched by the inquiry recently — and who shared with me the fact that body parts went past him that day. He saw a watch on a deceased person's arm. His child then asked for that same type of watch, and he did everything that he could not to buy it as a Christmas present, because it would remind him every day of the sights that he had seen.

It is vital that we support our emergency services. They need to be properly resourced. They need fair pay. Also, they need our support. One of the reasons that motivated me to come to this place was that too many of its Members are involved in making instant judgements based on a clip on social media about the conduct of our police officers in particular. They see a 10-second clip and come to an instant judgement. Members of the House have condemned officers when they had no context — judge, jury and executioner. We had the debacle on the Ormeau Road, with senior members of Sinn Féin demanding that a young constable be thrown under the bus. That act really should have resulted in more consequences, not just for the Chief Constable who bent the knee to that demand. I am glad that we have a stronger Chief Constable now.

We have an Alliance Party whose Minister, I am afraid, has been disastrous in her leadership of Justice. I will say this: you cannot stand up and say today that you support the members of our emergency services, who are being assaulted and spat at, when you are the Minister who has proposed a consultation on downgrading the penalty for an assault on a police officer from a prosecution to a ticket. It would be like a speeding ticket.

Dr Aiken: Shameful.

Mr Burrows: Shameful. That will only increase the attacks on our Police Service.

I will always stand for the gallant men and women of the Royal Ulster Constabulary George Cross who served before. I will not allow history to be rewritten or unwritten.

I want to look forward and pay tribute to all those who are out today serving the people of Northern Ireland without fear, favour or distinction. I pay tribute to them today.

Mr Durkan: Tomorrow is World Suicide Prevention Day. It is a day when we reflect and remember the people whose lives were cut short by suicide. Those people are not just statistics; they are sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, friends and neighbours. However, the Executive seem to have become desensitised to that fact. In 2023, 221 people died by suicide, which is an 8% increase on the previous year. That is 221 more empty seats at dinner tables and 221 more families who have been shattered forever. Yet, that devastating loss barely registers in the Chamber, let alone sparks the action that it requires from the Executive.

We live in a time when the loss of the art of human connection is more evident than ever. I worry deeply for our young people who are drawn into phones and algorithms that do not just entertain but exploit their insecurities and vulnerabilities. The algorithms feed them content that is designed to make them feel smaller, more self-conscious and more alone. Research shows us that heavy social media use is linked to higher rates of anxiety, depression and poor self-esteem among young people. We must work with other legislatures to regulate the platforms and safeguard the vulnerable.

Technology is a relatively new factor in this multifaceted issue, but we must also face the shameful reality of political neglect.

Suicide prevention is shamefully absent from the Programme for Government. Protect Life 2 and the mental health strategy were launched with great promise yet remain chronically underfunded, under-scrutinised and under-delivered.

While we delay, the crisis deepens. Suicide rates are three times higher in our most deprived communities. In places such as Derry and Strabane, where poverty, housing collapse and lack of opportunity weigh heavily, mental health and addiction services are either buckling or disappearing altogether. It is a shameful and oft-quoted fact that the number of lives lost to suicide since the Good Friday Agreement has now surpassed those lost during the Troubles. Bombs and bullets no longer do the most damage here in Northern Ireland: mental illness, substance misuse and suicide do. These are preventable deaths, but tackling them requires urgency. It requires us to look beyond sticking plasters and commit to early intervention, sustained funding and urgent cross-departmental action.

Mr Boylan: The appetite and desire for change has grown across this island among people from various backgrounds and walks of life. We have seen directly, through our party's commission on the future of Ireland, the positive vision that people have for Ireland. Whether you are in Keady or Kildare, Armagh or Athlone, Tyrone or Tipperary, many of the issues facing our communities are the same. Duplication of public services on an island of this size is, in many instances, inefficient and therefore ineffective in delivering for the people whom we represent. We have seen in recent years the growth in cross-border trade, together with greater collaboration in infrastructure development and health service provision. However, those are only glimpses of what is possible in the event of Irish unity. Consolidating infrastructure development across the island would lead to more coordinated planning and greater connectivity, boosting trade for businesses.

During recess, on a visit to Leinster House, I took the opportunity to engage with our TDs and Senators about the challenges we face and the opportunities that exist to overcome them. It is no secret to anyone in the House that we in Sinn Féin believe that the interests of people on this island would be best served in a new Ireland, and it is our desire to achieve that goal through referenda, as set out in the Good Friday Agreement. We need to be ambitious and look towards the future to invest in infrastructure, and this vision is not coming from the British Government. We need to do things differently, and Irish unity will allow for that. Projects such as the A5 and the all-Ireland rail review will enable us to spread wealth and jobs and benefit the economy as a whole. It is time to plan, discuss and prepare for change. It is time for the Government in Dublin to establish a citizens' assembly or assemblies on Irish unity to prepare for our future. This is a decade of opportunity, and we must seize it.

Mr K Buchanan: I stand to reflect on 1 September, Orange Victims Day. The date was picked due to the horrendous crime that took place on 1 September 1975, when five innocent men were slaughtered in Tullyvallen Orange Hall, 50 years ago last week. At the weekend, I attended an event in the Apprentice Boys Hall in Londonderry, which included moving tributes that remembered its murdered brethren: 343 men and one woman. We hear from the First Minister for all about ending violence against women and girls, which, indeed, is a major issue. Nobody is doubting that fact. However, how can she refer to ending violence against girls, women and children but, in her next breath, say that there was no alternative? That makes no sense to me.

I will read some quotations from this book:

Where was the thought to end violence against women, children and girls there? I could go on, and I will, because I have three minutes and I intend to use that time. Also in the book:

That was violence against women and children. Another example:

Another example:

It is only a little book, but thousands of lives were destroyed.

There were 343 Orangemen and one woman murdered, and this book covers only some of those murders. One man was murdered by the IRA at his farm whilst leaving milk cans out for collection. His wife was pregnant at the time, and he had a one-year-old daughter. Another gentleman, while working on his farm, was shot at least eight times by four masked IRA gunmen who had emerged from an adjoining farm, where they had taken a hostage. His body was found by his 80-year-old mother. He had no connections to the security forces and was killed simply for being a Protestant. Another gentleman, a 49-year-old married man with three children, was murdered. A 64-year-old married man was murdered along with his wife and daughter.

The hypocrisy that we hear daily from the party opposite is as clear as looking through a window. Those are the facts, and you cannot take away from them. I say this to the perpetrators of those crimes: you may have escaped justice in this world, but you certainly will not in the next. Be 100% sure that you will not in the next. Every morning when you wake up, think about the eyes of the victims that you murdered. You saw their eyes. Every night before you go to bed, think about what you did. Sleep well.

Dr Aiken: The stopping of the MV Matthew in Irish territorial waters in 2023 by the LÉ William Butler Yeats, supported by the Irish Army Ranger Wing and aircraft from the Irish Air Corps, is to be commended. The seizure of 2·2 tons of cocaine was a significant drugs haul, but, judging from the changes in illicit drug prices across Europe, it regrettably had little or no impact on that invidious trade.

The real question is this: why did the cartel think that smuggling cocaine and other drugs through Ireland was such a low-risk activity? As is reported in the open, there are around a hundred suspect vessels on the high seas of the Atlantic or adjoining seas. Grey shipping is much more prevalent, however. It is used by everyone from rogue states to criminal gangs for the transmission of arms, waste and drugs, to smuggle people and to damage or cut fibre-optic cables and gas lines. Much of that grey fleet is routed through Irish waters and airspace. That is because the 880,000 square kilometres are under no surveillance. They are covered by only one offshore patrol vessel that has no gun and one maritime patrol aircraft with no anti-surface or anti-submarine capability at all. They are ungoverned spaces subject in reality to no jurisdiction, despite Irish claims.

If a country cannot guarantee security over those regions, it cannot justifiably claim sovereignty. It is a significant matter for us in the Northern Ireland Assembly because there is little control by the Irish authorities, and Northern Ireland has become a path through our open border into Europe. While the EU worries incessantly about sausages contaminating the European single market, there is nothing being done to deal with the influx of illegal drugs and illegal trade through our borders. That is because Ireland freeloads on defence and security, spending an abysmal 0·3% of its GDP on its armed forces. It is also noteworthy that the rest of the countries in the EU, most of which are members of NATO, are heading towards spending 5% of their GDP on defence. If that process continues, Ireland's role as the port of choice for every narco-terrorist, every rogue state and every other terrorist will grow significantly.

At least some Members of the Irish Oireachtas get it. We have a, thankfully, outgoing Irish president who lambasts the EU, the UK and NATO for their higher defence expenditure, while the country that he represents goes cap in hand for airspace and maritime support from those very nations in order to stop the use of Ireland's waters by criminals and others. There must be a better way, and it is about time that Ireland grew up and joined NATO.

Ms McLaughlin: As the Assembly returns from the summer recess, I look ahead with a simple but urgent message: what we have here is not working. For too long, the north-west has been left behind when it comes to infrastructure and regional development. Nowhere is that clearer than with rail. Despite decades of underinvestment, the people of Derry have responded with ambition. In the past year alone, there have been almost one million journeys made to and from the north-west regional transport hub. It is the second record-breaking year in a row, lifting us from the seventeenth busiest railway station in Northern Ireland to the seventh in less than a decade.

That is the railway station that some people and some parties in this institution wanted to close down.

Let us be honest, however: remarkable as that growth is, it masks the deeper truth. Our rail system is still failing to meet the needs of our people. We have limited timetables, long journey times and no proper all-island connections. The worst part is that a proposal from Translink to upgrade the rail services in the north-west has been sitting on the Infrastructure Minister's desk for far too long. Every time we ask for an update, we get the same recycled answer. It feels like Groundhog Day, and I ask the question almost every month.

This is now blatant discrimination against the north-west. It must be sorted not as a favour or an afterthought but in the interests of regional balance and basic fairness. The evidence is clear, the demand is there and the people of the north-west are ready. Campaigners such as Steve Bradley and the Into the West group have been tireless in making the case for the upgrade, yet the Government are standing still while our community is crying out for change.

It does not have to be that way. We can build something better, something new: a modern, green and connected transport system that finally gives the north-west the fair share that it has been denied for too long. That vision must include greater rail connectivity across the island, linking our cities and communities in a way that supports growth, opportunity and sustainability for all. That has to be our ambition in the months ahead. The cost of delivering an equity of service to the people of the north-west should be on the Infrastructure Minister's agenda, and it should be delivered. Tinkering around the edges is not good enough. Delivering real progress needs to happen.

Mr Gildernew: Once again, regrettably, I rise to address the issue of the ongoing vandalism and destruction of dual language road signs in south Tyrone, with the Irish language being targeted. It is disappointing that it continues to be the case. It is a clear attack on our culture.

For many years, activists have campaigned to promote the Irish language, which is a language that is shared across these islands. It is a Gaelic language and an ancient language, and the vandalism is a slap in the face for those campaigning for that. However, it will not deter anyone from campaigning or continuing to promote the use and visibility of the Irish language.

I call on people to use their influence to stop the ongoing criminal and hate-driven damage to public property, which is what we see. The PSNI recently indicated clearly that it will investigate it as a hate crime. It is regrettable that, over recent weeks, we have seen numerous signs across the district vandalised once again. It needs to stop, and the PSNI needs to take serious and critical action to ensure that it stops and to send a message to those who are at it that it will not be tolerated.

Mr Buckley: The hapless state of the UK and Ireland surrounding uncontrolled and illegal immigration has continued to be exposed. Over 50,000 people entered the UK illegally on small boats in the past year, with 1,000 arriving on Saturday alone, costing the UK taxpayer billions of pounds annually. However, it is not just the UK Government that have been hapless in their approach to the subject: there are parties in the Chamber that are part of that gathering.

Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the Alliance Party all voted against the DUP's motion calling for the UK Government to take strong action on illegal immigration. Those parties are against taking action on illegal immigration, against taking action on the proliferation of houses in multiple occupation (HMOs), against taking action on illegal immigrant hotels and against taking action on the abuse of public services by those who enter the country illegally, placing pressure on our public services, housing, health service and law and order.

A Member: Rubbish.

Mr Buckley: I hear you shouting "Rubbish", but it is not. The facts are clear. [Interruption.]

I hear Sinn Féin talking about the national conversation that is happening across the community. There is a conversation happening. Whether it is on the streets of Newry, Belfast, Portadown or elsewhere, people are coming together to call out what has been a dereliction of duty from nationalist parties such as Sinn Féin and the SDLP and others such as Alliance who have failed to deal with the issue and stand up for constituents because they have no lived experience of it.

Now, we have the issue about the law that permits people to come to this country and stay without deportation. Those who have come to this country and have, in some cases, been part of horrendous acts — sexual acts — of violence against women and children. What was once said in a Charles Dickens novel? It was:

Indeed, the European Convention on Human Rights is being interpreted as such, because we have a growth of the barrister politician class, who will not stand for a single vote but will adjudicate upon laws in this land that defeat the purpose of having strong, controlled borders.

It is time that parties got real on the issue, stood up for all our citizens and ensured that we have safe and secure borders and a place that is prosperous for all. Be assured that the Democratic Unionist Party will continue to do just that.

Mr Speaker: Timothy Gaston. You have a couple of minutes, Mr Gaston.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I take this opportunity to reflect on the immense contribution that the loyal orders and the marching bands scene made to the cultural life of Northern Ireland over the summer months. Every year, the streets of Ulster resound to the music of marching bands that have spent the winter months reaching a standard that is unmatched anywhere else in the amateur world. Bands give people an identity, a pride and a sense of achievement whilst nurturing their musical talents.

A fact that often goes untold is the contribution that bands make to the economy. Uniforms alone can cost £1,000 or more, with no grant support. That is money that goes straight into the economy of Northern Ireland. Alongside that, the loyal orders this year staged 19 major demonstrations on the Twelfth, bringing tens of thousands on to the streets to celebrate a living tradition in the glorious sunshine.

All that happened despite the usual attempts to blacken my community through lies and mistruths. That was seen most clearly when a lodge in Comber was demonised for 48 hours by the BBC for daring to challenge the GAA's links to republican terrorism. Some in the media have since apologised for getting carried away in the hysteria, yet the BBC — the source of much of that misinformation — offered only a grudging correction, which was hidden away online. The media's double standards are glaring and need to be called out. Republican cultural events are endlessly promoted and defended, while loyalist culture is endlessly maligned. I appeal to those who wrongly rushed to condemn the lodge in question, including Members in the House, to do the honourable thing and apologise.

I make no apology for speaking up for my culture and the marching bands scene, and I will continue to do so when given the opportunity in the House.

Mr Speaker: Thank you, Mr Gaston.

Mr Gaston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, during the question for urgent oral answer on gender identity services, the Minister of Health stated that he was:

and that GPs would simply:

However, a recently released freedom of information response from the Department, which was obtained by the Christian Institute, clearly details ongoing discussions and planned costs for GP involvement in phase 2 of the service, including the development of a specific training package for shared care arrangements; additional payments for extra duties, such as blood monitoring; and an addendum to the business case to address GP reluctance without full commissioning. That directly contradicts the Minister's assertion that he had no awareness of such costs.

I ask you, Mr Speaker, to direct the Minister to correct the record at the earliest opportunity so that the Assembly and the public can have accurate information on the full financial implications of that service. Yesterday, he said that he would be happy to look at the facts that I had to back up what I said. I have shared with you the FOI, and I would be very happy to share it with the Minister of Health to enable him to come back to the House —

Mr Speaker: OK.

Mr Gaston: — to correct the record.

Mr Speaker: OK. Thank you, Mr Gaston. We will happily look at that.

Mr Givan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, in an interview with Cool FM, the Alliance Party leader and Justice Minister made an extraordinary attack on the teaching profession. She suggested that, on the basis of a common-sense policy that I set out in May and reiterated yesterday regarding transgender issues, some teachers would be part of an open season of bullying young people. That accusation was made in response to a position that I believe reflects the views of the vast majority of people, which is that biological boys should not use girls' toilets or changing rooms and should not participate in competitive sports with girls. In addition, I suggested that neither pupils nor teachers should be compelled to use pronouns other than those that reflect biological sex.

I appreciate that some Members are going to find that difficult, but let me repeat what the Justice Minister said so that you can give me advice on how I can hold her to account in her role as leader of the Alliance Party or as Justice Minister. It is really important that the Assembly knows how to hold people to account. The Justice Minister said:

Shameful, Mr Speaker. Will you advise me to understand whether those comments were made in her capacity as Alliance Party leader or as Justice Minister so that the Assembly and I can hold her to account and so that I can properly address my formal communication that I will issue later today calling on her to retract those comments and apologise to the teaching profession for that outrageous attack on its professionalism?

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Speaker: Order. As Speaker, I am responsible for what people say in the House, not outside it. What any Minister says outside the Chamber will come under the ministerial code and should be raised at the Executive as opposed to in the House. If the Minister had made her comments in the House, Members would be in a better place to challenge her. However, the matter falls under the ministerial code, if there is an issue around what the Minister actually stated.

Mr McCrossan: On a point of order. Mr Speaker. Will you review the comments that the Education Minister just made? I think that he has misled the House. He said that he was talking sense. I think that most of us would find that hard to believe.

Mr Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order, as the Member well knows.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): In March, I stood in the Assembly to launch TransformED NI, which is my new strategy for transforming teaching and learning. The strategy sets out a bold and ambitious vision for educational reform in Northern Ireland and is informed by what works best in education systems across the world. Unlike too many other strategies across Departments, the publication of that strategy marks the start, not the end, of the process. The strategy will not sit on a shelf but will be implemented in practice. That is why we are backing the vision with action. In April, I published the strategy's delivery plan. Today, I am delighted to update the Assembly on the implementation of TransformED and to look forward to the year ahead.

At its heart, TransformED is about ensuring that every child and young person, regardless of their background, has access to an excellent education. The intent is clear and urgent: to build a world-leading education system. The strategy represents a decisive shift in how we approach teaching, learning and equity in our schools. It is perhaps the most significant change in education in many generations. We are not simply tweaking the edges of policy; we are reimagining the foundations of our education system. Make no mistake: TransformED is a break from what has gone before. It places the classroom at the centre of reform and recognises that the quality of teaching and learning is the single most important factor in improving our children's outcomes. TransformED focuses on five key areas: curriculum, assessment, qualifications, school improvement and tackling educational disadvantage, all underpinned by a relentless focus on supporting effective teaching through significant investment in professional learning.

Let me outline the progress that we have made to date. Over the past six months, we have laid the structures for meaningful and lasting reform. We have established an international ministerial advisory panel, bringing global expertise to Northern Ireland. Those world-leading thinkers are helping us to benchmark our ambitions against the highest-performing education systems. Alongside that, our local academics group will provide critical insight that is rooted in research and evidence. Its work ensures that our policies are grounded in what works, informed by data and shaped by the realities of our classrooms. Crucially, we have created primary and post-primary principals' panels, giving our school leaders a direct voice in shaping reform. Together, those structures form a powerful coalition for change, combining international insight, academic rigour and front-line experience. They are helping to ensure that TransformED is not just ambitious in its goals but effective in its delivery.

If we want to build a better future, we must begin by investing in those who will shape it: our teachers. To quote McKinsey's famous maxim:

As Minister of Education, I reaffirm my pledge to support teachers at every stage of their career. From initial teacher education to ongoing professional development, we must ensure that every teacher has access to the resources, training and support that they need to excel in their profession. A world-class education system begins with world-class support for educators. Central to the TransformED strategy, therefore, is a commitment to investing in a comprehensive approach to teacher professional development. After many years of limited progress, we have made significant strides in that area in recent months.

In May, I launched the online teacher continuing professional development (CPD) academy for post-primary schools. The academy offers on-demand courses, expert insights and practical resources that are grounded in cognitive science research. Of our 190 post-primary schools, 145 have signed up for the academy, and over 6,000 teachers in Northern Ireland will benefit from the programme. In June, my Department launched the TransformED teacher professional learning (TPL) fund, which is a £31 million investment over three years that provides schools with dedicated per teacher funding to support high-quality, evidence-based professional development. The fund empowers schools to purchase professional learning that is tailored to their specific needs, fostering a culture of continuous improvement. Alongside the fund, the Making Best Practice, Common Practice programme is enhancing access to educational research.

The new monthly 'Science of Learning' newsletter is bridging the gap between research and classroom practice, offering accessible insights that educators can apply immediately. We have also funded over 100 schools to host 50 research-informed conferences, bringing together practitioners, researchers and school leaders to share what works and why it works. This month, we launched a quarterly research publication for teachers, edited by Queen's University, and a new leadership newsletter for principals.

A high-quality induction programme is essential to ensuring that our newest teachers enter the profession with the confidence and support that they need to thrive. Working with the Education Authority, my Department has developed a major expansion of the induction programme for early career teachers. We are building a rich programme that supports continuous improvement. In the months ahead, we will extend the online science of learning professional development programme to primary schools, develop a new professional qualification for headship, roll out bursaries to support membership of the Chartered College of Teaching, strengthen the provision of school-to-school support through a leaders of education programme, and develop a new professional learning programme for existing experienced principals.

To our school leaders and teachers, I say this: you are the foundation on which we will build a better future. TransformED is a commitment to invest in you and in the teaching profession. I want us to work together to build a culture across our community where education is truly valued and teaching is rightly regarded by all as an attractive, high-status profession. That is why I also plan to introduce student bursaries to improve the uptake of initial teacher education (ITE) in subjects that are experiencing teacher shortages.

Curriculum form is key to my TransformED agenda. Curriculum is the backbone of all education and the road map that shapes what pupils learn, how they develop thinking skills and how they prepare for life, work and citizenship. In June, Lucy Crehan published her strategic review of the Northern Ireland curriculum, which was a major milestone in our reform journey. It is a landmark report that sets a clear, ambitious and forward-thinking vision for the future of learning in our schools. The review report and its recommendations provide a comprehensive assessment of our current curriculum and set out a compelling case for change. The case for a new curriculum framework is based on five key principles: a framework that is purpose-led; knowledge-rich; continuous and coherent; specific and focused; and flexible and inclusive.

In July, my Department published its formal response, accepting many of the review recommendations, including a new curriculum task force to drive forward reform. The task force terms of reference have also been published, setting out a clear mandate for modernising and aligning our curriculum with international best practice. Over the last number of weeks, I have appointed a task force advisory committee that is made up of leading educationalists from across the British Isles to lead that work. I am delighted that leading educationalist Christine Counsell is chairing the task force, with Lucy Crehan continuing her involvement as the deputy chair. Christine brings unparalleled expertise as a globally recognised thought leader in education. She has advised successive United Kingdom Governments and, most recently, helped to lead curriculum review in Flanders.

This term, the work of the curriculum task force will gather pace. Building on the success of the inaugural TransformED school leaders conference, two curriculum conferences later this month will bring together school leaders and senior teachers from across Northern Ireland to explore the concept of knowledge-rich curricula and the impact that such approaches can have on pupil outcomes, inclusion and tackling disadvantage. Recruitment will also start shortly for the subject advisory groups to support the reform programme. Teachers across Northern Ireland will be invited to join those groups and shape the new curriculum over the next 12 months.

Assessment reform is also well under way. An independent review panel chaired by Tim Oates has been established and is actively progressing its work. The panel will issue a call for evidence and a teacher survey later this month. My Department has worked with the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) to put in place the first system-level sample assessments in literacy and numeracy for pupils in years 4, 7 and 10. A representative sample of participating schools has already been identified, and the first assessments will take place in March.

The new approach aligns Northern Ireland with international best practice, mirroring approaches used in countries such as Finland, Canada and Singapore. It will provide a clear, evidence-based understanding of how well our pupils are developing essential skills in reading, writing and mathematics in each Key Stage. It will also allow robust measurement of standards over time, enabling a much more authoritative picture to be established of our overall educational performance than is currently possible. The insights gained will play a vital role in shaping policies and interventions that support high-quality teaching and learning for all children in Northern Ireland. We are also accelerating the development of computer adaptive assessment through CCEA, with a record 522 schools participating in the September 2025 pilot. The reforms will ensure that assessment is meaningful, fair and aligned with learning.

Looking ahead, next week, I will launch a public consultation on the future policy direction for GSCE and A-level qualifications in Northern Ireland. Our proposals are guided by a clear and ambitious vision: to create a more streamlined, learner-focused system that prioritises depth of understanding over quantity of assessment. We intend to reduce the number of examinations that young people are required to sit and, wherever possible, remove controlled assessments. That will ease the burden on teachers, freeing up valuable time for high-quality teaching and meaningful learning. The message is simple but powerful: more time for deeper learning and less pressure to teach to the test. We want to empower teachers to inspire, not just prepare, and enable students to truly engage with their subjects, not just memorise mark schemes.

I turn to school improvement. At the heart of any education system that truly promotes social mobility is the simple but powerful principle that every child deserves access to a good school, yet, in Northern Ireland today, that principle is under threat. Due to prolonged industrial action, many schools have gone without inspection and the external scrutiny, support and challenge that are essential to driving improvement and safeguarding children. That is not a minor administrative issue but a systematic failure that puts standards and equity at risk. We cannot continue with the constant threat and reality of disruption. That disruption is unmatched anywhere else in the United Kingdom or Ireland. Northern Ireland stands alone as an outlier. Every other jurisdiction has clear, enforceable legislation that requires cooperation with school inspection. We do not, and that must change.

We are preparing legislation to ensure that the statutory arrangements for inspection are not only robust but enforceable. That is not about bureaucracy; it is about accountability, transparency and the right of every child to high-quality education. Over recent months, we have completed a public consultation on the legislation, and I will bring the Bill to the Executive in the coming weeks. It is a critical step in restoring confidence, raising standards and protecting children.

Let us be clear: do we, as a society, believe that schools should be inspected? If the answer is yes — as it must be — ask yourself whether that inspection should be voluntary. Of course not. No serious education system in the world leaves inspection to chance. We need a legal framework that guarantees consistent, independent oversight of educational quality, child protection and safeguarding. In parallel, we will launch a consultation on a new school improvement policy that provides tailored, evidence-based support to schools in all circumstances. It is about building a system that is fair, rigorous and focused on what matters most: the life chances of our children.

Talent is universal, but opportunity is not. Excellence in education is simply not possible without greater equity. Narrowing the gap for disadvantaged learners is central to TransformED. We have now completed a public consultation on legislation to raise the participation age to 18, and I will bring that Bill forward in the autumn.

RAISE initiatives are also under way, including a new reading with AI research project that explores how technology can support literacy. Plans are well advanced for holiday revision schemes and a primary science of learning programme. Those evidence-based initiatives are designed to close the attainment gap and ensure that every child has the opportunity to succeed.

As we move into the new academic year, our focus will be on deepening, accelerating and scaling the implementation of TransformED. Key priorities include supporting schools in implementing the TPL fund and accessing a wide range of enhanced professional learning opportunities; advancing the work of the curriculum task force and engaging stakeholders in curriculum reform; new strategies for literacy, numeracy and school improvement; progressing legislative work on inspection and the age of participation in education; beginning the work of qualifications reform; and expanding the RAISE initiatives and evaluating their impact.

TransformED is a blueprint for excellence, equity and empowerment. It sets out a bold, coherent and evidence-driven agenda that will not only transform education in Northern Ireland but allow us to learn from and, ultimately, outpace the world's best.

In recent months, we have made remarkable progress — progress that is without parallel in recent years — but let me be clear that this is only the beginning. Reform is not a threat but a promise: a promise to do better, to be better and to serve better. TransformED is that promise to every child that their education will be ambitions, inclusive and life-changing; to our teachers that they will be empowered, supported and valued; and to our society that education will be the foundation of a more prosperous and confident Northern Ireland.

I thank all those who have contributed to progress so far, particularly our school leaders and staff. Their commitment is the engine of transformation. Together, we are not just imagining a better future but building it. Too often in the past, change has come at a glacial pace but not this time. Our children get only one chance. With TransformED, we are delivering that change.

Mr McCrossan: Minister, you paint TransformED as a world-leading reform agenda, but the reality on the ground tells a different story. Teachers are demoralised, classrooms are overcrowded and schools are underfunded and crumbling. School inspection has been paralysed for years. Given that the Department of Education has been run by three different DUP Ministers over almost 10 years, how can you credibly claim that you are building a world-class system, when the basics of funding, staffing and accountability are in crisis? Is the strategy not little more than a glossy distraction from the fact that children and teachers are being failed every day by DUP Ministers and the disastrous Executive?

Mr Givan: The Member should raise his ambitions and get to the challenge on the horizon that I am setting him. Let us make every school a good school. That is what TransformED is doing. It is transformational. Do not take my word for it: go and speak to principals. Hundreds of principals attended the inaugural TransformED conference. We surveyed principals, and there was overwhelming satisfaction with and support for what we are doing.

The Member speaks on behalf of the Opposition. I get that it is a place where Members can luxuriate on the Back Benches and not take responsibility for trying to make changes to our society and where they can speak against all that is wrong while others step up, take responsibility and govern to make this place even better. That is what we are doing with the education system. TransformED is the blueprint. We have published it and are delivering on it. The Member should speak to people who are actively engaging with it in the teaching profession. They have endorsed it. They are excited about what we are doing. I encourage the Member, who can get quite excited at times, to get excited about the plan. It will make a difference to his constituency.

Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): I thank the Minister for his statement. It outlines the simple and powerful message that there will be more time for deeper learning and less pressure to "teach to the test", which is something that, I imagine, everybody here will support. If that is his view, is he content that, for much of P6 and into P7, our children are taught to the test? Was this not an opportunity to do something about that approach to delivering teaching and learning in our schools, which is really there just to facilitate academic selection rather than to achieve the best outcomes for our children?

Mr Givan: I note that there was not one word of criticism about what we are doing through TransformED. I will take that as a compliment and an endorsement from the Chairman of the Committee. The default position for people who would rather not talk about teachers' professional learning, investing in our teachers and delivering a world-class curriculum is to go back to academic selection. That is a circular debate.

I say to the Member, who, as I said, is the Chairman of the Education Committee, that he can do so much better. I know that he can. He is better than resorting to going around in circles talking about academic selection. Let us engage on TransformED. We can utilise the Education Committee to get behind the plan, because it will be transformational for every child, or we can go round in circles talking about academic selection.

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

In his statement, the Minister said that we will benchmark against some of the highest-performing education systems elsewhere. If we benchmark against the education system in the South of the island, the evidence shows that we lag miles behind it. Far more young people in the South go into third-level education, and far fewer leave school without qualifications.

Our big problem here is the long tail of underachievement. Bob Salisbury, a well-known educationalist, once said that we had the longest tail of educational underachievement in western Europe. In comparative studies of the systems North and South, one of the big differences that the spotlight has been on is academic selection.

Mr Speaker: Do you have a question, Mr Sheehan?

Mr Sheehan: Until that egregious practice, which damages children and the system, is ended —

Mr Speaker: Question.

Mr Sheehan: — education here will not be reformed. Will the Minister not accept that and accept the evidence?

Mr Givan: The Member is right about benchmarking internationally. We participate in the programme for international student assessment (PISA), which is an internationally recognised system of assessment, because that is where we are able to benchmark. He is right: in a number of areas of education, the Republic of Ireland outperforms Northern Ireland. When we benchmark with PISA, we find that England also outperforms Northern Ireland on literacy in particular. That is why we are making the changes. We have to look at what is happening in the Republic of Ireland, which is why I have on my international ministerial advisory panel an influential individual who was part of the education system in the Republic of Ireland. I will take best practice from wherever. I have no constitutional objection to learning from what the Republic of Ireland is doing and saying, "How can we improve and then do better to compete?".

We are not competing just in a Northern Ireland context, so is not about comparing a school in your constituency with a school down the street. When corporations take decisions to invest at global level, a key factor in their decision-making is how educated the workforce is. Therefore, we have to compete at global level. TransformED is very much about making sure that we can improve educational outcomes for all our young people. Benchmarking at an international level is important, and, where I can learn from and engage with my counterpart in the Republic of Ireland, I will. We share what we are doing — we are better in some areas, but the Republic is better in others — on how we can collectively make sure that both jurisdictions benefit. I will continue to do that.

Mr Martin: I thank the Minister for his statement, which is incredibly welcome. In response to the Member for West Tyrone, he reflected that, in broad terms, the sector — I concur with the Minister — is right behind TransformED.

There is so much that I could pick up on, but I will touch on the teacher professional learning fund, which, Minister, I understand is £31 million over three years. You will probably agree — the sector would agree with me on this — that TPL in Northern Ireland has been substandard for a while, so that —

Mr Speaker: Is there a question?

Mr Martin: — is incredibly welcome. How will the TPL fund roll out?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his comments. He has echoed what I hear from the principals in my constituency, who are really enthusiastic about what we are doing. One school in my constituency hosted a conference only last week, and the principal was greatly encouraged by how that went, with the sharing of good practice amongst principals who attended the event, towards which we were able to provide some funding.

The TPL fund is a £31 million investment over a three-year period. It will provide schools with dedicated, per-teacher funding to support high-quality, evidence-based professional development. Our Department will ensure that the training that schools engage in aligns with what we are taking forward by way of knowledge-rich curricula, which will make sure that the training is in line with the policies that we have set out.

The fund will run over a three-year period. It is hugely to be welcomed. Many teachers — they speak to us all — tell me that they want to continue to identify ways in which they can improve their practice and best develop their pedagogy in teaching the material that they have to cover. It is about giving them more time but also better support so that teaching practices in our classrooms can be even more effective.

Mr Burrows: I thank the Minister for that update. Does he agree that educational underattainment among boys is a particular issue in Northern Ireland and that a more balanced workforce, by way of attracting more male teachers into the profession, would help to provide positive role models in the education sector? Is there any international best practice that would help us to attract more men into the teaching profession in Northern Ireland?

Mr Givan: The Member has raised an important point. Males are underrepresented across the teaching profession, not just among teachers but in the various management levels in schools. It is important for young people to have those role models, whether they are female or male. I would very much welcome a higher number of young males wanting to come into the profession, because it would have a positive impact.

All of us could cite teachers who made an impact in our lives. There was a male teacher in my school who had to deal with an all-boys class, of whom I was one, that was maybe a little more disruptive than others. That teacher was very much able to guide us. I can certainly trace back some of his contributions in helping to correct the errors of my ways when I was at school. I agree with the Member entirely that we want to encourage higher numbers of young males in particular to come into the profession.

Mr Baker: Minister, you referenced the RAISE programme in your statement: it has been flawed from the outset. Why did you reference that in relation to TransformED, when it was initially meant to be a two-year programme? Has further funding been made available by the Dublin Government?

Mr Givan: The Member is entirely wrong. It is not a flawed scheme; in fact, I encourage the Member to engage with the West Belfast Partnership Board, which has developed its own strategic area plan. I have had a look at the plan that has been developed in his constituency and commend it to him: it is hugely impressive. The Department is in receipt of all of those local area plans. The RAISE programme is about tackling educational underachievement and trying to help people. The schemes that are being developed are community-based, are led by community organisations and will be transformative.

Move away from the big "P" politics. I get that, at times, Members want to have a pop, but the plans will make a real impact. I commend the West Belfast Partnership Board for the work that it has been doing to develop its plan, and I encourage the Member to become more familiar with it. The sooner that we can get funding into his community, the better the outcome will be for his constituents.

Mr Middleton: I thank the Minister for his statement and commend him for the work that he is doing with TransformED. In your statement, Minister, you mention the review of the curriculum and the potential for that to gather pace. I would be grateful if you could provide some more detail on how that pace will be gathered.

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for that question. I referenced Lucy Crehan, whom I appointed to take forward the strategic review of the curriculum. That was published, and I responded formally on its recommendations. That review outlined the way in which our education system needs to be based around a new curriculum framework that is built around subject disciplines and strong, knowledge-rich content and recommended the establishment of a curriculum task force to lead the development and roll-out of that new framework. That work is very much under way. We have appointed the members of the task force, and it is already at work. It is chaired by Christine Counsell, and Lucy Crehan is its deputy chair.

We also have the task force advisory committee, to which I have appointed leading educationalists from across the British Isles. They are being tasked with taking forward the review of Northern Ireland's curriculum, which will look at every subject. It will also try to ensure that there is consistency in the curriculum as well as vertical coherence when it comes to the way in which we deliver it from primary 1 to primary 2, primary 3 and the various Key Stages. It is about how we layer on and build up knowledge in those subjects.

I am sure that Members have heard post-primary principals complain that how far pupils have covered a particular subject depends on the primary school. They will often say to me that they have to start from scratch in some subjects, because some children come with a much higher level of understanding of the subject content compared with others. We need to ensure that there is consistency across all our schools in the delivery of that curriculum and that we layer on the curriculum year on year to build up the knowledge. That will be really important in the outworkings. We have asked schools to do that in 12 months. That is a very ambitious target. Over the next 12 months, we will have a reformed curriculum. We will then need to move into the implementation phase of all that, which will take time. However, we need to get all the foundation work carried out and the new curriculum completed, and we will then move towards an implementation stage.

Mrs Guy: I thank the Minister for the statement. Minister, you have been clear that there is an evidence-based approach in TransformED. I hope, though, that your use of evidence is not selective, because you have already made it clear that you will ignore the evidence on academic selection.

I will ask about educational underachievement. We know from research that improving pastoral support and emotional well-being is crucial to tackling educational underachievement, especially for boys and young men. How will TransformED help schools and staff to improve pastoral and emotional support?

Mr Givan: Part of the schemes that have been identified in the local area plans for RAISE deals with a lot of the pastoral support, attendance and the underlying issues in why young people do not attend school, so there are good proposals in the RAISE schemes. That is why it is important that we get funding rolled out and the scheme under way.

Tackling educational disadvantage and underachievement are very much part of TransformED, because we need a curriculum and an education system that are accessible to everybody. Some people will almost write a child off, and the child will not realise their full potential. Every child can be given a really good education, if we can get the education system working effectively. Pastoral support is, of course, part of what schools do. We provide funding, particularly through targeting social need (TSN) funding, of which £75 million is for the extended schools programme. We have Fair Start, which identified and supported various schemes through that process, and we want to make sure that we have better regular attendance.

Part of the challenge in school attendance and making sure that pupils come to school involves the appalling way in which COVID was handled. The lockdown of schools was appalling. We live with the legacy of that, and the Member's party campaigned vociferously to shut down our schools. We are seeing the ripple effect of denying children the opportunity to be in a classroom, so, if the Member is going to challenge me on what I do for pupil welfare, where was the concern for pupil welfare when it came to keeping them out of schools? It was not there.

The Member is entitled to continue to challenge me, if she wishes, but I love the "Pity me" approach that the Member takes. She will have a pop at me, but, whenever I respond in kind, she plays the victimhood card. She really needs to step up and not be so precious about the people who challenge her.

Miss McAllister: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it appropriate for the Minister to make what amount to misogynistic comments in the Chamber? It is an absolute disgrace that he just distracts and attacks. It does not bother us — the people see through it — but it is an absolute disgrace for a Minister to act like that.

Mr Givan: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker, it is absolute abuse of the point of order system to make such an allegation when it is not remotely the case.

Miss McAllister: I learn from the Minister.

Mr Givan: Aye, the Member admits it.

A Member: The irony.

Mr Speaker: Order. I will review the Member's remarks in the calm of day.

We will move on to the next Member to speak, who is Cathy Mason.

Mrs Mason: Minister, on the back of an industrial relations agreement earlier this year, you committed to a workload review in recognition of the huge burden that our teachers have been carrying. Will that workload review consider the implications on teacher workload that is in the TransformED programme?

Mr Givan: That is a really important question. The review was the outworking of an industrial agreement. Work has been undertaken by Paul Sweeney, formerly a permanent secretary in the Department of Education, and a trade union representative has also been working on it. That work is under way, and there has been engagement on workload. I expect a report to come to me in the autumn so that I can engage on its recommendations. I believe that they will make recommendations that will help address workload, but decisions that had been taken, for example on controlled assessment, are already relieving the burden of teacher workload. We have harnessed CCEA for the computer adaptive testing model, and CCEA will help us to ensure that assessments take place in a way that does not add to teachers' burden but reduces it.

Ms Brownlee: I thank the Minister for coming to the Chamber with his statement. I am extremely excited not only for the education system but for Northern Ireland. The strategy will be a game changer.

Will the Minister provide an update on statutory assessments for 2024-25 and for this year?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for the question. Statutory assessment is really important in providing us with the information that we need to improve our education system.

In the 2024-25 academic year, we saw a return of assessments at the end of each Key Stage for the first time since the COVID-19 pandemic. Assessments were based on teacher judgement against the levels of progression in communication and use of mathematics. Notably, nearly three in 10 pupils are not achieving at the expected level in literacy and numeracy by the end of primary school. That is a significant concern, particularly as those foundational skills are essential for pupils' future learning, well-being and life opportunities. It is also a stark reminder of the challenges that we face, and it highlights the urgent need for a renewed focus on literacy and numeracy across our schools. I will therefore publish new literacy guidance for schools, which will be supported by a targeted programme for teacher professional learning. The insights gained from the 2024-25 data will inform the wider review of assessment and will play a vital role in shaping policy and interventions that support high-quality teaching and learning for all children in Northern Ireland.

Mr Harvey: Minister, I welcome your statement. Will you explain your 10-point plan?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for the question. We published not only a strategy but a 10-point plan to deliver educational excellence. The 10 commitments aggregate the actions throughout the strategy and aim to give coherence and clarity to the overall plans. Each of the 10 strategic commitments aims to learn systematically from the most effective and fast-improving school systems in the world.

The 10 actions in the plan are to review and redesign the Northern Ireland curriculum to ensure that every child enjoys an ambitious and knowledge-rich curriculum that develops their learning in a well-sequenced and explicit manner; investment in high-quality teacher professional learning; investment in curriculum resources; new literacy and numeracy strategies, based on international best practice; a new school improvement policy; a new system of attainment measures for assessment at the end of each Key Stage to set high standards for all children; a comprehensive review of qualifications; an integrated approach to tackling educational disadvantage within schools, families and communities; new legislation to ensure that all learners remain in education, apprenticeship or training until age 18; and a coherent accountability framework for education to demonstrate value to government, taxpayers and parents.

Those actions are all interrelated. We have not just the TransformED strategy but a clear 10-point plan that provides coherence to what we will deliver. That allows us to move forward. We cannot look at one area in isolation. We cannot just update our curriculum without looking at qualifications or making sure that we provide professional learning opportunities for teachers to develop. All that needs to move together. That is why we have a 10-point plan that underpins the process through which we will take forward the transformation of our education system.

Mr Dickson: Minister, you stated that you wish to remove controlled assessments, where possible. How can you be confident that that decision is in the interests of all learners, many of whom perform better when the high-stakes pressure of an examination is removed?

Mr Givan: It is not that we do not want to have controlled assessment; we do. We want to have assessment at Key Stages 1, 2 and 3. We typically benchmark once the GCSE or A-level results are published, but, if that is the only way in which we formally assess our education system, there is a problem in that many of the pupils concerned are aged 16, 17 or 18 and are therefore leaving school. We need to be able to identify the performance of pupils from Key Stage 1, Key Stage 2 and Key Stage 3. That will allow us to determine which schools we can provide additional support to.

We have looked to CCEA for the assessment process. It is developing an assessment model that will be less intensive for teachers, with peer-to-peer assessment whereby teachers observe other teachers' practice. The delivery of that will very much be led by CCEA, which will help to reduce the burden on teachers and will give us important information on literacy and numeracy in particular. That will then inform how the system can respond to those needs.

Mr McGrath: I commend the work of Patrician Youth Centre in Downpatrick and local schools, Lecale Trinity Grammar School and Blackwater Integrated College, which deliver a joint Youth Service/schools approach, targeting those for whom the traditional curriculum is not attractive. That approach is appealing and, thus, engaging for those young people. Does the Minister agree that such a joint approach, which is structure-light but knowledge-rich, has a place in education and should be funded, even though, at the minute, the Youth Service tends to turn its nose up a wee bit at that type of approach?

Mr Givan: There are certainly examples — the Member referenced one — where a positive impact is made outside a formal school setting. The Member referenced those organisations, and I can cite Monkstown Boxing Club as being another example of where young people who would otherwise not be in school are engaged in the education system. We support that, and I commend the organisations that the Member referenced on the work that they are taking forward, because I believe that we need an education system that is responsive to whatever way pupils and other young people best respond to and engage with education.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you, Minister. How can we be assured that the teacher CPD academy will provide our teachers with the broadest possible range of academic thinking and teaching methods?

Mr Givan: We are developing professional learning and rolling out the £31 million TPL programme. We have a clear position on a knowledge-rich curriculum. We also have the science of learning. That updates how we understand the ways in which people learn best, because we now have a much better understanding of how the brain operates. We need to ensure that the way in which teachers deliver teaching aligns with all that information. That approach will be underpinned by evidence — it is evidence-led. The training will align with the evidence, which justifies the approach that we are taking to develop the Northern Ireland curriculum and the practices that take place in our schools.

Miss McAllister: Minister, we cannot talk about transforming education without talking about selection. It is not respectful to belittle the experience of teachers and children, who are made physically sick due to that pressure. They expect more from you, Minister.

My question is about the teacher CPD academy's being developed by InnerDrive, which I have read about. Will you outline the value of that contract and the procurement process that was followed in the awarding of the contract?

Mr Givan: The Member raised the issue of the procurement contract and so on, and I am more than happy to provide that information.

I have my views on academic selection, you have your view on academic selection, and everyone else has their various views. There is no consensus on what to do about academic selection. Of my children, some sat it, and others did not. It is a choice — a decision that parents will make when the time comes to go through the process. If there is a better way to select children to transfer to schools, please bring it forward. If it were to be done on the basis of children attending their nearest school — one that they live beside — we know what would happen: the wealthy would buy up the properties beside the best-performing schools, which would disadvantage those who do not have the means to do so. If that is the solution that is being advocated, I do not see how it will work in our society.

I had a choice to make when I came into this role: either we go round the decades-long position on academic selection, on which there is no consensus, or we get on with trying to improve the education system in every single school, irrespective of whether it is a grammar school, a comprehensive school or an Irish-medium school. My focus is on helping every single school. That is my objective, and that is what the TransformED document is very much about.

Mr Gaston: Minister, your statement is full of fine words, and I genuinely wish you well in your vision that you have outlined. However, once again, valued classroom assistants have been overlooked. You ignored my amendment regarding that sector yesterday. Would you like to share with the House how you value classroom assistants and where you see them fitting into the vision that you have outlined?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his welcome of what we are trying to take forward. I supported the Member's amendment in the Assembly last night, so I am not sure where he is getting that from. Let me state on the record that classroom assistants are hugely important to our education system. They provide important support to the young people whom they are helping. We need to ensure that the education system provides funding for what is in the best interests of our children. Whether that is funding for teachers or for classroom assistants, we need to be sure that, when we are identifying the best way to support the child, the resources, financial and human, are allocated in a way that is in the best interests of the children. Without a shadow of a doubt, classroom assistants are hugely important to our education system.

Ms Sugden: Minister, you have set out reforms around curriculum assessment and teacher development, but the glaring omission for me is any sort of programme around life skills, including healthy relationships, consent, mental health, suicide prevention — sadly — and so much more.

There is a real opportunity here to support kids, parents and teachers who are asking for that type of support in our schools. Is there anything that you will do to consider that as part of your TransformED programme?

Mr Givan: It is one of the reasons why the review that I commissioned of learning for life and work (LLW) in schools said that it was not delivering. Pupils who I met said that they did not find that that was an effective means by which to address some of the issues that the Member has just outlined. We are going to be looking at the way in which the curriculum addresses those issues, and we will be doing it in a way that I believe will be more effective than the current approach has been in our school system.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed. That concludes —.

Miss McAllister: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Just a second. Just a second. Just a second.

Miss McAllister: Do not be patronising.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): That concludes the statement by the Minister. Point of order.

Miss McAllister: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I do not need to be patronised. I just want to highlight that I asked the Minister a rather straightforward question —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Can the Member retake her seat? Now.

You have the opportunity to apologise for making that statement right now, because I believe that it was directed at me. There was no patronising. I was waiting for the Minister to finish, in accordance with what he is supposed to do. Would you care to make an apology, Member?

Miss McAllister: No.

Mr Clarke: Shame. Shame.

Miss McAllister: I have learned from you.

Deputy Speaker, you need to take a look at your —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member will retake her seat. Member, you have an opportunity to retract and make an apology for the statement that you made, or you can remove yourself from the Chamber.

Miss McAllister: I will not, Deputy Speaker. I will not make an apology, because you do need to look at they way that you do speak to many of the women in this Chamber who do stand up, and you need to consider the way that you talk there. So I will not make an apology. You can ask me again; my answer will not change.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): You are to remove yourself from the Chamber right now.

Miss McAllister: I will happily do so.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you.

We are waiting.

Mr Dickson: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Member whom you have just unceremoniously removed from the Chamber was about to raise a point of order about comments made to her by the Minister in his statement. It was to ask how and when she could expect the written information that he indicated in the answer to her question. She wishes to know how she should approach the matter. Sadly, I have had to ask you that question on her behalf, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed for the tone you have taken. The matter will be referred to the Speaker's Office to get the details. To say, however, that a remark was patronising, when all that I was doing was trying to move on to the next item of business, is not acceptable. It is not acceptable to the Chair or to the House. There is a degree of decorum that should be followed. Indeed, your party's Deputy Speaker was recently at a Speakers' conference at which we covered those issues. You may wish to refer to him about those issues. We will move on to the next item of business.

Mr Dickson: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, after the way in which you have just handled the specific matter of removing a Member from the Chamber, I invite you to look not only at the words that you used as she rose to raise her point of order but at the video recording. While I am on my feet, I suggest that some of the men in the Chamber reflect on the moans and groans that they made when a female Member was raising a legitimate point of order.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you. We now move —.

Ms Forsythe: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I will take one final point of order, and then we will move on with the business.

Ms Forsythe: There has been an outrageous abuse of the term "misogyny", and, as a woman sitting in the House, I am appalled at the manner in which the Chair has been addressed. I ask that the Speaker's Office provide advice to all Members on how the Chair should be respected and addressed.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you for that point of order. It will be passed on to the Speaker, and he will no doubt comment on it at the Business Committee meeting later today.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I have received notice from the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs that he wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that they must be concise in asking their question. This is not an opportunity for debate, and long introductions will not be allowed.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I will make a statement, in compliance with section 52 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, on the twenty-fifth North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) environment sectoral meeting, which was held in the Loughs Agency's offices in Carlingford on 4 July of this year.

The Northern Ireland Executive were represented at the meeting by junior Minister Aisling Reilly MLA, junior Minister Pam Cameron MLA and me. I chaired the meeting. The Irish Government were represented by Darragh O'Brien TD, the Minister for Climate, Energy and the Environment and Christopher O’Sullivan TD, the Minister of State at the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage with special responsibility for nature, heritage and biodiversity. The statement has been endorsed by junior Ministers Reilly and Cameron, and they agreed that I should make the statement to the House.

I am pleased to report that it was a very useful and constructive meeting and that progress was made in all the areas that were discussed. I will now summarise the discussions and each paper in turn and the main outcomes and agreements that were reached.

On cooperation on environmental research and funding opportunities, Ministers welcomed the strong links between researchers in both jurisdictions in the field of environmental research, including through ongoing projects funded through collaborative funding programmes in both jurisdictions and via European-funded programmes. Ministers also welcomed the ongoing collaborative environmental research projects, such as the jointly funded co-centres, and the CREDA, HIGH-GREEN and sustainable, integrated, optimised electrification and automation of transportation networks (SPECTATOR) projects funded through the Government of Ireland’s North/South research programme as part of the Shared Island initiative.

The Council agreed that both Administrations will continue to work together to maximise opportunities for environmental research and funding, including those offered by PEACE PLUS, Horizon Europe, the Innovation Fund Ireland, the North/South research programme, the Shared Island bioeconomy demonstration initiative, the DAERA/Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM) collaborative research programme and the US-Ireland R&D partnership programme.

The focus was on the bioeconomy in the area of climate change mitigation and adaptation.

Ministers noted the opportunities that the bioeconomy can offer through sustainable and circular bio-based innovations and solutions for climate action, culminating in a just transition from a linear to a circular economy in both jurisdictions.

The North/South Ministerial Council welcomed the progress that had been achieved by both Administrations in developing and implementing initiatives, including strategies and action plans on a North/South basis, and agreed that officials should continue to collaborate on key issues that affect the bioeconomy.

As regards cooperation on biodiversity, the North/South Ministerial Council noted the commitment of officials in both jurisdictions to engage biannually on matters relating to biodiversity, with a focus on conservation action and restoration initiatives, and welcomed the continued cooperation on biodiversity projects that are funded under the PEACE PLUS programme and the Shared Island initiative. Ministers endorsed the ambition to share best practice through programmes such as Farming for Nature and Farming with Nature; encouraged knowledge transfer of successful delivery in the European innovation partnership programme, the LIFE project and the environmental farming scheme; and encouraged collaborative engagement on natural capital accounting approaches to habitat mapping and ecosystem assessments.

On cooperation on the marine environment and marine-protected areas, the Council welcomed ongoing North/South cooperation in developing policy and legislative frameworks that follow the ecosystem-based approach and provide protection for coastal and marine habitats, species and marine ecosystem services. Ministers welcomed the presentation from a DAERA official on the Northern Ireland blue carbon action plan 2025-2030 — the co-delivery policy for nature recovery.

Ministers agreed to continued North/South cooperation to develop policy and legislation that gives regard to the transboundary nature of marine ecosystems and to provide opportunities for cooperation on science and research projects, knowledge exchange between officials and, where necessary, the development and/or alignment of transboundary management measures.

The North/South Ministerial Council agreed that officials should work jointly on topics such as the participation of coastal and island communities in management action and environmental stewardship; the valuation of marine ecosystem services; nature-based solutions and measures to protect and restore natural carbon stores; designation and management of marine-protected areas; and measures to achieve offshore renewable energy targets while ensuring the protection of marine ecosystems.

On water quality and waste water management, Ministers welcomed the launch of the Northern Ireland Executive-approved Lough Neagh report and action plan on 23 July last year, the publication of Ireland's third cycle of the river basin management plan, the 'Water Action Plan 2024', on 5 September 2024, and the Northern Ireland Executive's approval of the third cycle of the river basin management plan on 5 June 2025 and its publication on 13 June.

The North/South Ministerial Council noted the holding of a catchment community fora workshop and the continued progress in developing the cross-jurisdictional pilot catchment work plan that is being undertaken in the Newry, Fane, Glyde and Dee catchment. Ministers welcomed the engagement of officials on water quality issues through the North/South water quality coordination group.

The Council agreed to hold its next meeting in this sectoral format in autumn 2025.

In closing, I am pleased to be able to report on a very productive and constructive meeting. I look forward to continuing to work with my counterparts in Ireland on all areas of cooperation in the North/South Ministerial Council's environment sector. I commend the statement to the Assembly and welcome any questions.

Mr McCrossan: Minister, you spoke about collaboration and research, but people in the communities around Lough Neagh and the Foyle need urgent action. Rather than more strategy papers, what clear timelines and targets will come from the meeting to improve water quality and biodiversity?

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for his question. I welcome him to his post and look forward to working with him as his party's spokesperson on agriculture, environment and rural affairs matters.

We are talking about North/South cooperation. I outlined the areas that we discussed. It is important that we have strategies so that we have an overall policy framework, but it is also important that we take action. On Lough Neagh, the key area of focus and action is the Lough Neagh action plan that was agreed and published in July last year. I am focused upon the delivery of that, because the people of Northern Ireland deserve delivery on the key issues. In terms of nature recovery, later this month, we will launch a consultation on the nature recovery strategy. It is really important that we take action in that area. I will make announcements in the next period on how we will support the NGOs to take practical action to restore nature in Northern Ireland.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Sinéad Ferris. My apologies: Sinéad Ennis. People are probably misconstruing my language today. I do not know what has happened. Everybody seems to be a bit excitable. Sinéad, my apologies. Over to you.

Ms Ennis: I wonder why that is.

Minister, your statement talks about cross-border cooperation on water quality and marine ecosystems, yet there is no mention of the environmental nightmare that the Carlingford lough community of Warrenpoint is suffering, over which your Department continues to preside. Over the summer, I wrote to you, as the Minister responsible for issuing the waste management licence, to ask what meaningful action your Department is taking. What you are doing, beyond sending out the odd NIEA official to tell us that the operation is compliant? Will you tell the people of Warrenpoint what you are doing practically to end this environmental nuisance on their behalf?

Mr Muir: I am taking all the actions that are possible within the legal vires of the Department. We are working quite hard to address the concerns that have been raised with me on the odour issues in Warrenpoint. It is important that I put that on the record. I consider these issues to be important, but we have to work within the legal powers of my Department, specifically in relation to the Northern Ireland Environment Agency.

The last inspection of the facility by NIEA officials was on 14 August, and we will continue to do what we can within our legal powers. That stands in stark contrast to the approach of your party and the SDLP, which was to down tools and walk away from the Warrenpoint Harbour Authority. The politics of boycott do not deliver for Northern Ireland. I am focused on delivery and on addressing these issues, rather than on walking away from them.

Miss McIlveen: I note that there is agreement on working to achieve offshore renewable energy targets while ensuring the protection of marine ecosystems. The protection of our fishing industry should also be a priority alongside that. Will the Minister give assurances that any meaningful engagement will also include the fishing sector, which will, obviously, be at risk from any offshore renewable activity?

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for her question. It is important that we engage with the fishery sector because it is one of the key sectors that will be affected. It is important that I put it on record that I believe in the importance of that engagement. I also believe in supporting our fishery sector in Northern Ireland. I have had regular engagement with DEFRA on the fisheries and coastal development fund to get clarity on where that funding will go so that we can get it rolled out. There are new DEFRA ministers in post, and I will continue to engage with them. It is regrettable that that change has occurred because I met with Daniel Zeichner just a few weeks ago and we were making good progress. However, we are starting with a fresh team, and I will start with a fresh approach. Hopefully, we can get that support to fisheries and coastal communities in Northern Ireland.

Mr McMurray: Will the Minister provide an update on Northern Ireland's first climate action plan?

Mr Muir: The climate action plan is out for consultation. I encourage everyone to have their say on that because it is a key intervention for us in Northern Ireland and a requirement that has arisen from the climate change legislation. It is important that we deliver upon that legislation. Public events are ongoing, and I encourage people to feed back to them.

Mr Buckley: The Minister's statement references the issues facing Lough Neagh. He recently announced a round of funding to explore potential products and solutions to treat and reduce blue-green algae. I am aware that five companies received such funding. I know of at least one company — I am sure there are others — that was denied funding in that particular round. If we are to approach this conversation with a genuinely open mind, will the Minister explain why that was the case and will he commit to engaging his officials to ensure that all those companies with potential solutions have the ability to present to the Department so that we can best place targeted action if the solutions exist?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Mr Buckley. There has been quite a lot of interest in the small business research initiative (SBRI), so we have had to go through a competitive call. Some companies made it through that and others did not. Subsequent to that call, people have come forward with further initiatives. We have had to consider whether we should do a further round because companies have been coming forward with additional interventions. That is something on which I will engage with officials. If people have good ideas and we want to be able to test them, we should provide a mechanism for doing so.

Mr Dickson: Minister, how has your Department been engaging with the Irish Government on the Asian hornet threat?

Mr Muir: People will be aware that an Asian hornet sighting was confirmed in Cork on 13 August and that, subsequently, the National Parks and Wildlife Service confirmed that a nest was successfully located on Thursday 28 August. That highlights the fact that that high-risk species has the ability to reproduce on the island of Ireland.

NIEA is actively collaborating with colleagues in the Republic of Ireland through the Shared Island biosecurity and invasive species initiative to monitor developments and share intelligence on the evolving situation south of the border. As part of that effort, a DAERA representative has been invited to join the Irish Government's Asian hornet management group, facilitating timely and effective information exchange between the jurisdictions. In parallel, NIEA is exploring opportunities for sharing training and equipment to strengthen preparedness and response capabilities across the island. Furthermore, NIEA has been invited to partake in the review of the response to the current outbreak in Ireland, enabling valuable lessons to be identified and incorporated into Northern Ireland's contingency planning, should a similar incident arise.

My concerns about the matter are significant. NIEA is working through the terms of preparations should such an eventuality arrive in Northern Ireland. If it does, I need to level with Members today and say that we will have to stop doing many other pieces of work so that we can divert resources to deal with it. It is a concern. We have seen the situation that has been unfolding in Cork, and we have to be conscious of the need to respond to it.

Ms Mulholland: Will the Minister provide an update on cross-border collaboration on climate change and on any impact arising from the recent A5 judgement?

Mr Muir: Throughout my time as AERA Minister, I have been clear about the importance that I place on climate action. The journey to net zero is the defining challenge of our generation. The Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 was a central feature of the judgement made in the High Court on 23 June 2025. I have decided that it is appropriate for my Department to apply to the court to formally intervene in the appeal. The focus will be on clarifying the interpretation of the legislation so that it can be fully implemented as intended.

We have made much progress on climate action since I took up office, and I am determined that that will continue. Achieving the targets requires collective leadership. All Ministers and all Departments can and must play a role together. There are significant opportunities for investment as we transition towards a more sustainable economy, including good green jobs and increased energy security from renewables. The poorest in our society should not be left to bear the consequences of wild price fluctuations at the behest of dictatorships that own fossil fuel supplies. Decarbonisation will improve the health and well-being of our citizens, especially the most vulnerable, if we focus on a fair and just transition through which everyone can benefit. Strong climate and environmental credentials will be critical, if we are to attract inward investment, maximise economic opportunities, develop skills and compete on an international scale while showcasing the best of Northern Ireland.

Mr McGlone: Minister, I attended a public meeting last night along with a number of other elected Members. There were over 100 people there in Kinturk in Moortown, County Tyrone. As you will be well aware, the issue is Lough Neagh and the priority to have action on Lough Neagh. The statement is an opportunity for you to detail when you liaised with colleagues from other parts of the island. The Irish Government have been engaging with agriculture, the farming sector and other environmental stakeholders on how the issue, which is also at Lough Sheelin, can be addressed. Did you avail yourself of the opportunity to engage with the Ministers from the Republic, who are your colleagues, on measures that can be collaboratively taken or learned from how they have engaged significantly and supported the agriculture sector towards finding creative new measures?

Mr Muir: I confirm that Lough Neagh was discussed at the North/South Ministerial Council environment sectoral meeting, because it is a shared challenge, given that the catchment area covers North and South. A lot of good work is being done North and South, but we need to do more. Discussions are ongoing about the potential for a Shared Island initiative on Lough Neagh. I want to be able to support the farming community on the road ahead, particularly taking into account the success of the South's agricultural sustainability support and advisory programme (ASSAP) and the sustainable catchment programme in the North, which are similar initiatives. They are an opportunity for us to collaborate on the issues.

We will continue to engage. There is strong and positive engagement. However, it is about more than just water quality; it also relates to nature and biodiversity. There are a number of Shared Island and PEACE PLUS initiatives, and it is really good that we have those, but we will need to redouble our efforts and to work North/South. I welcome the fact that the Irish Government have included cooperation North/South in their Programme for Government, and that is why we work together on the issues.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for his statement. Will he provide a more detailed update on the clean air strategy?

Mr Muir: Thank you very much, Nick. The clean air strategy is an important initiative that my Department is taking forward. We are engaging with other Departments with responsibility for minimising polluting emissions to air to agree the actions that each Department can include in the draft clean air strategy. Good progress has been made on the development of the draft strategy.

I have met my officials to set out my policy direction, and liaison is ongoing between DAERA, the Department for the Economy, the Department for Infrastructure, the Department of Health and the Department for Communities. A draft of the clean air strategy was recently shared with those Departments. My officials are reviewing the feedback that was received and revising the strategy to reflect those views. I anticipate the launch of the public consultation on the draft strategy later this year. I remain committed to publishing a robust strategy that will deliver real benefits to human health and the environment across Northern Ireland.

Mrs Guy: I thank the Minister for the statement. Will he give an update on future Shared Island opportunities?

Mr Muir: We are considering a number of Shared Island opportunities. Departmental officials are engaging with the Irish Government's Shared Island initiative unit to explore a Natura Communities network proposal. That will build on the work that has already been successfully undertaken by the Shared Island initiative peatland programme and will provide €5 million for the establishment and implementation of the Natura Communities networks.

Departmental officials will engage further with the Irish Government's Shared Island initiative unit to explore opportunities to improve water quality in the Lough Neagh catchment area and more widely on the island of Ireland. Any such proposals will build on and support the actions in the Lough Neagh action plan that is being progressed.

Mr Gaston: Minister, you rightly highlighted the importance of water quality and waste water management. Closer to home, however, there is deep public concern about the reported 200,000 tons of raw sewage being discharged into the Lough Neagh catchment area. Will you outline what progress you have made with your DFI counterpart to ensure that that ongoing pollution, which Northern Ireland Water contributes to, is brought under control?

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for his question. It is a critical issue. We are pumping sewage into Lough Neagh, Belfast lough and our waterways, and something needs to be done about it. My responsibility relates to regulation and enforcement. Since NI Water was established in 2007, there has been a separate regulatory regime for NI Water. Farmers often tell me, "That is not fair", and I agree with them. I will need support from Executive colleagues to have a regulation and enforcement regime on sewage pollution that makes it clear that there are no separate arrangements for anyone. That will come forward in the next number of months, and I will need backing on it.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Minister. Other Members have raised the issue of Lough Neagh, which is a real concern for many of us. Will you give us some sense of what the Shared Island initiative that you have talked about will involve? What stakeholders will be engaged in that? Members have spoken about the agriculture community — I declare an interest as somebody who comes from an agricultural background — but we also need to engage fishermen, both those who fish on boats and our angling community. All those people have a vested interest in protecting our lough.

Will you also give us a sense of what environmental and economic benefits our population might gain from the lough in the future?

Mr Muir: No problem, Linda. I was in County Monaghan last year, when we had a North/South conference around water quality in respect of agriculture and the good work that is being done down South and up North.

We have a sustainable catchment programme in Northern Ireland through which the Rivers Trust, which I met, delivers on-farm advisory support to farmers in the Upper Bann catchment area. I was impressed by that, but it needs to be broadened out. It is an action in the Lough Neagh action plan that the sustainable catchment programme be broadened out much more widely.

They have initiatives down South that are broader than those in the North. We need to take learnings from those and see whether there is a way to expand them in the North as part of the sustainable catchment programme.

There are four pillars regarding the improvement of water quality in Lough Neagh and elsewhere: education, incentivisation, regulation and enforcement. Let us be clear: the focus ought to be on education and incentivisation, because it is much better if the problem does not occur in the first place. Yes, we need to have regulation and enforcement, but, if we have to resort to that, that is an example of failure. I want to invest in education and incentivisation, and that is why I need support from the Shared Island project, as I do not have the money in my budget to do it at present. I will work on a North/South basis on the issue and will continue to engage with my colleagues so that we can pull something together and deliver that on the ground.

The Member mentioned engagement with people. It is critical that we bring people with us. I will keep my focus on that issue.

Mr McNulty: I note with bewilderment the self-congratulatory tone on Lough Neagh while our lough is engulfed with a rancid blue-green algae. Given the repeated failures on waste water management and nutrient run-off, what enforcement measures will be introduced to make sure that commitments on water quality are met? Does the Minister's Department have the vires to act against and fine the Department for Infrastructure in relation to its failings in discharging waste water to our sea and watercourses?

Mr Muir: I have already addressed a number of the questions that the Member has outlined. There is no self-congratulatory tone from me. What unfolded over the summer was nothing short of a thundering disgrace. Year-on-year, we see the situation evolve on Lough Neagh, and, when I come to the House to look for support, I do not get it. Members need to support me in taking the difficult decisions. I welcome the constructive opposition that parties, including that of the Member through the recent motion, have given me, because we need to focus constructively on how to resolve this.

I have already outlined my view on the arrangements that are in place for waste water infrastructure. I will need support from my Executive colleagues to ensure that there is equal and fair treatment across all the pollution elements regarding waste water pollution and the sewage that is going into our waterways.

There is also a fundamental issue about whether we are serious about governing Northern Ireland. I am; I am up for taking difficult decisions. Others will have to decide in the next number of months whether they are as well.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): That concludes questions on that statement.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I have received notice from the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs that he wishes to make another statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that they must be concise in asking their questions. This is not an opportunity for debate, and long introductions will not be allowed. Minister, over to you.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Mr Deputy Speaker, can you clarify what the next statement is, because there is aquaculture and agriculture? [Laughter.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): For the sake of clarity, we are dealing with the aquaculture and marine sectoral meeting of Friday 4 July 2025. Have you got the right one, Minister?

Let's go for it. Well done.

Mr Muir: With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, in compliance with section 52 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I wish to make a statement about the thirty-second meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) in the aquaculture and marine sectoral format, which was held on Friday 4 July 2025.

The Executive were represented by junior Minister Cameron and junior Minister Reilly, as accompanying Ministers, and me, as lead Minister. The Irish Government were represented by Darragh O’Brien TD, Minister for Climate, Energy and the Environment, who chaired the Meeting. The statement has been agreed with junior Ministers Cameron and Reilly, and I make it on behalf of all of us.

The North/South Ministerial Council welcomed the report on the activities of the Loughs Agency, including the ongoing conservation and protection efforts, most notably the EU-funded projects with the aim of improving the monitoring of aquatic animals and species; fisheries improvements to create climate-resilient rivers, improve water quality and maximise fisheries productivity; and marine tourism to promote aquatic ecosystems and support local economies.

Ministers noted the success of the agency's international symposium on transboundary and collaborative water governance held in September 2024 to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the agency. It brought together experts, policymakers and researchers, focusing on cross-border cooperation for the protection of water, aquatic and marine systems.

The Council welcomed the presentation by the Loughs Agency on its strategic plan for its role in Carlingford. Ministers noted the agency's collaboration with Fáilte Ireland, Louth County Council, the Carlingford Vision '31 steering committee and other local stakeholders, which has facilitated the development of a suite of co-designed proposals that reflect the aspirations of the people of the region.

The North/South Ministerial Council approved the Loughs Agency's revised business plan for 2024, and its business plan for 2025, and recommended the budget and grant provisions that had been agreed by both sponsoring Departments and Finance Ministers. The Council noted that the 2022 and 2023 Loughs Agency annual reports and accounts have been laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly and both Houses of the Oireachtas.

The Council welcomed the update on the implementation of the science strategy framework, which is structured as a three-strand approach inclusive of salmonoids and other fish, native oysters and aquatic ecosystems for all science delivery at the Loughs Agency. Ministers noted ongoing work to improve the accuracy of fish counts in order to generate more robust data to better inform salmon conservation limits. The Council noted ongoing fish surveillance in compliance with water framework directive requirements. Ministers noted the potential for oyster surveys to provide the evidence base for consideration in relation to the sustainable operation of the Lough Foyle native oyster fishery. They noted the work undertaken in water quality monitoring across both catchments to inform pollution responses, habitat improvement works and statutory environmental planning. They also noted the use of environment DNA (eDNA) techniques to identify the presence of invasive species.

The Council commended the Loughs Agency for its proactive response to address the impacts of climate change and biodiversity loss on priority fish species. The Council welcomed the agency's continued commitment to working collaboratively with partners to help to deliver a collective response to the dual challenges of climate change and biodiversity loss.

Finally, the Council agreed to hold its next aquaculture and marine meeting in autumn 2025.

Mr McCrossan: I thank the Minister for that statement. You have a busy day today, Minister. You outlined the Loughs Agency's work on water quality, invasive species and fisheries, but local anglers and fishing communities are telling us that rivers are in crisis. Will you explain how the agency's budget and resources are sufficient to meet the enormous challenges?

Mr Muir: The Loughs Agency has a focus on its territorial area, and that is what it focuses upon. I want to give it additional powers. There will, hopefully, be a fisheries and water environment Bill coming to the House, which will give the agency additional enforcement powers. I get the concerns in relation to the impact that pollution incidences have had, and that is something that we want to take forward. We also need to get the Loughs Agency budget agreed for the next financial year and going forward. North/South cooperation is beneficial to that, because it allows us to get good value for money and to deliver for the citizens of Northern Ireland. I will continue to work with the agency to ensure that it has sufficient budget in place.

Ms Murphy: Minister, how is the cross-border implementation of the water framework directive being aligned North and South, particularly in achieving good ecological status targets?

Mr Muir: Officials engage on that on a cross-border basis. It is important that we do that, and we have a number of initiatives that flow from that wider strategic commitment. However, we have to recognise that the border does not respect the issues regarding water quality. That is where we cooperate North/South, and at the Council meetings as well. There will be further work, because we are looking towards the fourth cycle of our river basin management strategy, and we need to cooperate North/South on that. North/South cooperation on water quality is absolutely fundamental.

Miss McIlveen: Minister, I note that the NSMC approved the Loughs Agency's revised business plan for 2024 and the business plan for 2025. Does the Minister believe that there are any efficiencies that could be made, and has the Loughs Agency been tasked with that?

Mr Muir: The Loughs Agency operates on a relatively tight budget, and I know that it is doing a lot of good work. We examine its work at every meeting. I do not have additional concerns that it is inefficient, but if the Member has anything in particular on that, I can raise that with the agency.

Mr McMurray: Minister, what will the impact be on the Loughs Agency when the new fisheries and water environment Bill comes into effect?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Andrew. I am aware of concerns about the levels of fines imposed for water pollution offences, particularly the maximum statutory fines. Fish kills within the Loughs Agency's jurisdiction are prosecuted under the Foyle Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1952, with a recent prosecution in relation to the River Muff. My officials are taking forward a review of fines and penalties for environmental crime, including water pollution offences, as part of the policy development phase of the proposed fisheries and water environment Bill. Loughs Agency staff have been involved in the policy development phase and have taken part in stakeholder engagement on water quality. The Bill will give us the tools to be able to deal with a lot of the concerns that have been raised with me of late. It is important that the Loughs Agency be able to avail itself of those tools.

Mr T Buchanan: Minister, in your statement, you talked about ongoing work to improve the accuracy of fish counts to generate more robust data in order to better inform salmon conservation limits. Will you inform the House as to what progress has been made to date?

Mr Muir: I do not have any specific detail to give you now. I think that I have the detail in my mind, but I do not know whether it is entirely accurate. I will therefore write to you setting it out. If you have any concerns, I am happy to meet you to discuss them.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you, Minister, for your second statement. Will you give us an update on what the Loughs Agency is doing about pollution incidents?

Mr Muir: As Daniel McCrossan outlined, the Loughs Agency has powers in that regard. I am concerned about the number of pollution incidents in our rivers and loughs and the associated fish kills. When I am informed about them by officials, they cause me concern. There have been far too many times when officials have informed me of fish kills in Northern Ireland. So far this year, Loughs Agency fishery officers have investigated 128 pollution incidents. In 2025 to date, fishery officers in the Foyle and Carlingford areas have carried out 937 proactive watercourse inspections. The Loughs Agency has instigated a number of prosecution cases from its enforcement actions and has worked with the Police Service of Northern Ireland, an Garda Síochána, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) and other enforcement agencies to secure convictions. The Loughs Agency plays a vital role in preventing future pollution events from occurring by adopting a holistic approach that is in keeping with the four pillars of education, incentivisation, regulation and enforcement and is laid out in the Lough Neagh action plan. That approach is key to meeting the strategic environmental outcomes as set out in the environmental improvement plan.

Mr Stewart: I thank the Minister for his answers so far. Minister, as constituency MLAs, you and I share Belfast lough. You will know at first hand, as I do, just how bad the lough is, as is shown through water testing at the minute. Was anything raised about that at the meeting? What more can be done to protect the ecosystem in Belfast lough and improve the water quality, given the massive amounts of raw sewage that are being pumped into it and the industrial impact over many years?

Mr Muir: Belfast lough did not come up, but I am happy to answer your question. The focus is often on Lough Neagh, and we understand why. For the first time in history, the brown eel fishing season has been terminated. If that is not a message about the need for action, I do not know what is. We see the scenes on our TV screens every summer. Belfast lough is on course to become the next Lough Neagh. We are allowing sewage to be pumped into Belfast lough daily. That therefore requires me to step forward with proposals for stronger regulation and enforcement. It also requires brave political decisions to be taken on how we manage our waste water infrastructure. It is for the Infrastructure Minister to come forward in that regard, and I will not be found wanting in supporting any measures that do come forward.

Mr Dickson: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, turning again to the Loughs Agency, what discussion was there about the impact of climate change on fish stocks?

Mr Muir: The Loughs Agency has developed a climate action plan that maps organisational-level climate risks and impacts, supports a shift away from high-carbon energy, addresses climate adaptation for the organisation and supports climate-resilient solutions for the catchments of Lough Foyle and Carlingford lough. Through the delivery of the climate action plan, the Loughs Agency will implement an agile, risk-based approach to climate adaptation across the Foyle and Carlingford catchment areas. The climate action plan allows the agency to be responsive to direct and indirect climate impacts, thus allowing it to prioritise and plan work programmes.

Mr McGrath: Following on from some of the previous questions, I note that a presentation was given about Carlingford lough. Did it contain any details about protecting the lough, given its uniqueness as a shared space and also as a marine conservation area?

Mr Muir: A number of areas were covered in the presentation. I am happy for it to be shared with you, if you would find it useful. Carlingford lough is a special place for the communities around it. There are also transboundary issues on which we need to cooperate. That was the focus, and the fact that the Loughs Agency has new premises there is a welcome commitment in that regard. I am happy to share that with you and to discuss any issues that you have.

Mr McNulty: Minister, memories from my childhood are flooding back: building dams on the little, feeder river to Camlough — the crooked lake — where little fish swam down the river. The chances of those fish swimming down the river now are zero. There were trout jumping from that lake, leaping in the summertime. The chances of trout doing that now are zero. Minister, how will North/South cooperation directly protect and enhance trout and salmon stocks in the rivers and lakes around the North where numbers have collapsed?

Mr Muir: We have been off for the summer recess and are now back, and one thing that I have been looking forward to is my engagement with Justin, because you always get something a bit different. I can answer your question about salmon, but I will have to write to you about the other elements.

The Loughs Agency has made significant investments in fish counters and telemetry river gauges to facilitate the monitoring of salmon populations in its area. The River Finn failed to meet its conservation limit in 2024, as it has done since 2007. As a result, the commercial fishery remains closed in 2025, and the River Finn is catch and release only. Data from the fish counters indicates that the River Faughan, the River Roe and the River Mourne are meeting conservation limits with enough regularity to permit the retention of a small number of fish per licence in 2025.

To help address the challenges facing salmon stocks, the agency has recently developed the first marine salmon management plan for Lough Foyle. The agency is also delivering a number of fisheries improvement projects, including the creation of new spawning habitats; fishery and habitat improvement and enhancement schemes to introduce and improve holding, spawning and nursery areas for Atlantic salmon; and riparian tree planting to create refuge and shading for salmon stocks and to lower water temperatures.

In addition, the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization (NASCO) has agreed a new reporting format for parties to complete, which will provide details on the management of salmon stocks and outline what transformative conservation commitments will be undertaken over the next 10 years to address the decline in stocks in the jurisdiction. DAERA officials are liaising with the Loughs Agency on completing the first draft of the UK/Northern Ireland report, which is required to be submitted to NASCO by February 2026.

Mr Bradley: Thank you, Minister, for your answers so far. Minister, you alluded to the damage that Lough Neagh is suffering, but that damage goes the whole way to the sea. It goes through my constituency of East Londonderry and through the town of Coleraine, where we had a five-day flow of green water. What is the impact on salmon, white trout, brown trout and the indigenous coarse fish that live in the River Bann? Do not forget that, wherever a salmon is caught in Northern Ireland, it has basically come through Coleraine.

Mr Muir: You rightly outline the impact that the environmental catastrophe at Lough Neagh is having more broadly on our rivers and marine environments. You talked about the closure of Benone beach, and that highlights why we need to take action on this together. We can turn the course when it comes to water quality, not just in our rivers but in Lough Neagh and elsewhere, but that requires us to come together collectively. We will talk a bit more about the issues this afternoon during the debate on the motion on Lough Neagh, but I am not focused on any blame game. I am focused on working with people, and my Department is writing, on my behalf, to all the party leaders to ask for meetings to discuss concerns and how we can collectively move forward on this. I have proposals and will be looking for support for them, and I want to work with everyone on that. I look forward to meeting your party as well.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, obviously, we have a motion on Lough Neagh later, and we look forward to working with you on dealing with that. Lough Neagh and Belfast lough were raised by Members who spoke earlier, and it is clear that there is less North/South cooperation, less potential policy focus and less resource and regulation, because neither Lough Neagh nor Belfast lough is covered by the Loughs Agency or, for that matter, Waterways Ireland. That should change and would be a possible positive step. Would you support the extension of the Loughs Agency's remit to cover, for example, Lough Neagh, Belfast lough and, indeed, Lough Erne?

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for his question. The fact that Lough Neagh does not have a navigational body was, to me, an oversight at the time of negotiating the Good Friday Agreement. The good people negotiated a great agreement, but it is not perfect, and that was overlooked. I think that there would be merit in having a navigational body for Lough Neagh, whether it is Waterways Ireland, the Loughs Agency or another organisation.

The immediate focus is on water quality and what is going into the lough, but you have, rightly, highlighted that issue, and I am happy to work with people on it.

Mr Gaston: Minister, I thank you for visiting the Kells, Connor and Glenwherry Angling Club's hatchery, following our meeting with club representatives at Clare House during the summer. I trust that that will give you the confidence to approve the section 14 applications that the club has submitted. When it comes to improving the accuracy of fish counts, what progress have you made to establish the number of trout in Lough Neagh to ensure that it is being fished sustainably?

Mr Muir: That question was also raised by Tom. I am happy to write to you and say more about that, because I want to be able to set it out accurately.

I turn to the hatchery and your engagement with it. I have had quite a lot of letters about the hatchery, including one from my colleague Sian Mulholland, who is a Member for North Antrim. We are considering that matter. I had a really good engagement with the club representatives on site, and I am committed to working with people on conservation, whether that relates to fisheries or our environment. I was very impressed by what they outlined to me. Collectively, we can learn an awful lot more if we work together.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed. That concludes questions —.

Mr Tennyson: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Will you clarify the Standing Order under which Nuala McAllister was asked to leave the Chamber, the length of her suspension and why no question was put to the Assembly regarding her suspension?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much, Mr Tennyson. I will refer those matters to the Speaker, and he will review them. I also need to talk to the Speaker after this item of business, because, for clarification, Members should not make points of order when Ministers are still making statements. That is the convention in the House, and that was not being followed at the time. That was the reason why I asked her to withdraw her remarks. I gave her an opportunity to apologise on several occasions, and she did not do so. Those were the reasons. I will take that issue directly to the Speaker on the completion of this item.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement in compliance with section 52 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 on the twenty-ninth agriculture meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC), which was held in the NSMC joint secretariat offices in Armagh on Friday 20 June 2025. I feel as though I am repeating some of this. Junior Minister Aisling Reilly MLA, junior Minister Pam Cameron MLA and I represented the Northern Ireland Executive at the meeting. The Irish Government were represented by Martin Heydon TD, Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, and Dara Calleary TD, Minister for Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht. I chaired the meeting. This statement has been agreed with junior Ministers Reilly and Cameron, and I make it on behalf of us all. I thank Pam and Aisling for coming to the meetings and for their constructive engagement on all the issues. It is greatly appreciated by both the Department and me. It was a very positive meeting, and a lot of progress was made. I will now take each paper in the order in which it was discussed.

On the review of the work programme, the North/South Ministerial Council noted the implementation of the revised work programme for the agriculture sector, as agreed by the Council in May 2024, and the ongoing engagement between both Administrations to identify areas of mutual interest and benefit in the agri-food sector that may also be included in the work programme. The Council noted that an update paper will be provided for consideration by Ministers at the next agriculture sectoral meeting.

On cooperation on animal health, the Council noted that the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs intends to host in October 2025 a multi-agency practical exercise on humane slaughter contingency planning for an outbreak of an exotic disease, to which the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM) will be invited. The North/South Ministerial Council acknowledged the ongoing efforts by officials from both jurisdictions to strengthen existing cooperation on animal health and welfare. Ministers recognised the ongoing risk posed to agri-food sectors by exotic diseases, such as avian influenza and bluetongue, and welcomed the ongoing engagement between both jurisdictions to protect the high animal health status on the island through coordinated protection measures. The Council noted the work that is under way in both jurisdictions to reduce the prevalence of bovine TB across the island and agreed that officials should engage further to explore fully how best that can be achieved. The North/South Ministerial Council looked forward to the continuation of practical and effective cooperation on animal health and welfare and disease control in both jurisdictions in order for the health and welfare of livestock to be maintained at the highest level.

On cooperation on plant health and pesticides, the North/South Ministerial Council welcomed the ongoing commitment of DAERA and DAFM to proactively take steps to deliver the shared objective of achieving and maintaining good plant health status on the island of Ireland. Ministers noted the ongoing collaboration and sharing of expertise that was demonstrated in particular through the UK and Ireland plant health coordination group meeting, which DAFM hosted in July 2024. The Council welcomed the joint DAERA/DAFM simulation exercise to test plant health contingency plans that took place in December 2024. Ministers also welcomed the continued cooperation and opportunities that are being explored for further joint research as a result of DAERA's visit to Backweston laboratories in December 2024. The North/South Ministerial Council welcomed the continued cooperation on laboratory expertise, including the recent designation of the DAFM laboratory by DAERA as an official laboratory for carrying out analysis, tests and diagnosis of pesticide residues in or on food. The Council noted the continuing cooperation through the North/South pesticides group on the regulation on the placing on the market and use of pesticides.

The Council acknowledged the good collaboration between DAERA and DAFM on maximising the drawdown of EU funding under Horizon Europe and welcomed the €5·6 million of funding that has been secured to date by successful applications from Ireland and Northern Ireland for projects in the food, bioeconomy, natural resources, agriculture and environment sectors under Horizon Europe. Ministers noted that nine projects involving total funding of €10·12 million have been funded over the nine years of the US-Ireland R&D Partnership in agriculture, and they noted the progress that has been made on funding projects in both jurisdictions under the DAFM national competitive calls, including €22·5 million by DAFM and £7·3 million by DAERA for 22 projects since 2021. The NSMC welcomed the work that is under way by the co-centre programme, which is a strategic collaborative partnership between Ireland, Great Britain and Northern Ireland that is co-funded by industry and that will consolidate research activities across higher education and research institutes in co-hosted centres.

Ministers welcomed the announcement of a €9 million funding initiative to support the development of bioeconomy in the agriculture and marine sectors, with co-funding from the Government of Ireland's Shared Island initiative, DAFM and DAERA, and they welcomed ongoing consideration by DAFM and DAERA of further possibilities for research collaboration under existing or new measures.

The Council welcomed the ongoing cooperation between both Administrations on addressing climate change and loss of biodiversity in the agriculture sector. Ministers welcomed a key action in the Lough Neagh report and action plan recommending the introduction of a fertiliser database in Northern Ireland to record fertiliser movements along the supply chain as well as improve nutrient management and efficiency. The NSMC agreed that officials from DAFM and DAERA would continue to explore the possibility of sharing design approaches and implementation as well as lessons learned from DAFM's introduction of its national fertiliser database in September 2023.

On cooperation on rural development, the Council welcomed the continued work of the North/South rural policy forum, noting that the latest meeting of the forum included discussions on policy developments that are being progressed by the Department of Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht (DRCDG) and DAERA; the PEACE PLUS programme; voluntary and community sector supports; and updates on the connected hubs feasibility study. Ministers noted the cooperation between the two jurisdictions on rural development, including strong engagement on scoping a potential expansion of connected hubs across both jurisdictions. The Council noted that officials will continue to share information and best practice on rural development and to enhance cooperation on that issue and that they will bring forward updates to future NSMC agriculture meetings.

The NSMC welcomed the continuing cooperation between both Administrations on the ongoing work to improve farm safety. The Council noted the commitment of the farm safety partnerships from both jurisdictions to meet at least annually and cooperate on efforts to improve farm safety.

The Council agreed to hold its next agriculture meeting in autumn 2025. I look forward to working with my counterparts in the South in all areas of cooperation in the agriculture sector. I commend the statement to the Assembly and welcome any questions.

Mr McCrossan: I am settling quickly into this role, Minister. Thank you for that statement. You spoke about cross-border cooperation on reducing bovine TB. What practical measures will flow from that particular engagement? When will farmers in places such as Tyrone and Fermanagh begin to see a difference on the ground?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Daniel. Dealing with TB and its prevalence in Northern Ireland is a key priority for my Department. It is set out as one of the key priorities for the mandate. Officials work closely with colleagues in the South on the bovine TB programmes in both jurisdictions at the regular North/South meetings and through frequent engagement throughout the year. Whilst TB disease rates have been rising on both sides of the border, I am conscious that the position in the Republic of Ireland is significantly better than that in Northern Ireland, although that does not bring any benefit to farmers in the South. Consequently, I welcome efforts to deepen those close working relationships, especially the new initiatives at Chief Veterinary Officer (CVO) level, as part of a wider effort to place TB at the top of the disease control agenda across the UK and Ireland.

As Minister, I have heard first-hand on numerous occasions of the devastating impact that bovine TB breakdowns can have on farm businesses. I am extremely conscious of the rising cost of controlling the disease and the impact of that on my departmental budget. I am also conscious of the impact on farmers and of the fact that a 100% compensation rate does not mean reimbursement of the full costs to farmers.

TB therefore remains at the top of my ministerial priorities, and I look forward to engaging further with Minister Heydon on that most challenging subject in the time ahead. A number of items of work are under way that we hope to bring to fruition in the period ahead. I assure the Member that TB is a priority and that, on North/South cooperation, we are looking at ways of redoubling our efforts and doing something that is meaningful for farmers on the ground.

Ms Finnegan: I thank the Minister for his statements today. What opportunities exist for North/South agriculture research on climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies, including methane reduction technologies for livestock?

Mr Muir: Officials engage North/South, and there has been particular engagement in the areas that the Member outlined. We want to redouble our efforts on that. We have launched a Shared Island bioeconomy initiative, and we are moving towards recruitment of people to take that forward. The benefit of the Shared Island initiative is that we can work North/South. We have common challenges, and there are few differences North/South, so we want to redouble our efforts and base them on the PEACE PLUS and Shared Island initiatives. We will come to the Committee to outline that.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed. The Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. Questions on the Minister's statement will resume after Question Time, when the first Member to be called will be Michelle McIlveen.

Mr Speaker: Before we go to Question Time, we had an incident earlier that I was keen to put to bed and move on quickly from.

Standing Order 1(2) is clear that the ruling of the Chair is final in all matters of procedure. Regardless of a Member's views on how a Speaker or Deputy Speaker has dealt with something, it is out of order to add commentary and answer or challenge whomever is in the Chair. I have said before, however, that there are times when tempers rise and things get out of proportion but we can reflect and move on.

There is a precedent for dealing with such a situation, when Mr Aiken and Mr Gaston challenged the authority of the Principal Deputy Speaker. On that occasion, I gave them the opportunity to acknowledge that they should not have challenged the authority of the Chair and to apologise to the House, and the matter was put aside. I have therefore invited Miss McAllister back into the Chamber in the hope that we could, similarly, move on quickly. Were Miss McAllister to acknowledge that she was out of order in challenging the Chair, I would be content that she could resume business immediately. That is in Miss McAllister's hands.

Mr Speaker: Questions 4, 12 and 14 have been withdrawn.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): With your permission, Mr Speaker, I intend to answer questions 1, 8 and 13 together.

The meeting with the Chancellor was useful and allowed me to update her directly on the issues facing the people whom we all represent. I emphasised the need for the upcoming Budget to support growth and continued investment in and transformation of our public services. I also stressed that any tax and spend decisions taken in the autumn Budget must fully consider the impact that they have on our people and local businesses. I raised the need for a full fiscal framework, including the need for additional fiscal devolution and borrowing powers. The Chancellor outlined the broader fiscal context ahead of the autumn Budget and highlighted the need for investment, growth and a review of the tax system.

The meeting also provided a valuable opportunity to showcase the Executive’s achievements to date. Those include the agreement of three Budgets; exceeding the £113 million income generation target set out in the restoration package; the establishment of a transformation fund and the allocation of £129 million to six innovative projects; and the publication of our Programme for Government.

Having visited Studio Ulster, the Chancellor acknowledged the strength of our creative sector, which is supported through city and growth deals. She highlighted the potential of digital technology and AI, the need to invest in skills, particularly through our universities, to attract future investment and the importance of leveraging trade opportunities and how the upcoming regional trade summit in October will provide an opportunity to showcase the North's businesses and inward investment opportunities to an international audience.

Dr Aiken: I thank the Minister for his reply. One of the issues that we are having to deal with is that the Budget has been put back to the end of November. We have already seen the problems that our friends in Scotland and Wales have had in putting forward a three-year Budget. What contingencies have we put in place to look at that, particularly given that our pot will be squeezed and that Health and other areas will be under considerable pressure?

Mr O'Dowd: I recently had the opportunity to meet the Welsh and Scottish Finance Ministers. At that stage, I believe that we were not aware of the date of the Budget, although we knew that it would be delayed. They have slightly different legal processes to go through.

The situation is not ideal for our budgetary processes, but it is best to wait for the Chancellor's statement on 26 November before we table our final Budget to the Executive. Hopefully, we will get agreement so that it can go out for public consultation. My main concern is that we want to ensure that we have maximum time for public consultation. Ideally, I want to see a 12-week consultation, and I think that that is still possible.

Mr Buckley: As a north Armagh politician, I know that the Minister will be acutely aware of the huge contribution that farmers make to the Northern Ireland economy. He will also be aware of the unprecedented attacks that farming has faced both from some in this Chamber and from the Chancellor in her announcements on the family farm tax, which will disproportionately cripple Northern Ireland farmers. Did the Minister raise that issue of concern with the Chancellor? Is he confident that she at least alluded to some mitigating factors that will help farmers to deal with that substantial threat?

Mr O'Dowd: The Member will be aware that the deputy First Minister and I met the Chancellor on the date in question. The issue of farm inheritance tax was raised with the Chancellor. I was not encouraged by the Chancellor's response, and I made it clear to her on a number of occasions throughout the meeting that decisions made in London that may have beneficial impacts, in their minds, on various areas in England or Wales have significantly different impacts on this place. Farm inheritance tax is definitely one of them. The impact that it has had here can and will be significantly detrimental to our farming community. However, the Chancellor, in my view, is not minded for turning on the issue. We have seen a number of U-turns from the Government, and I hope that this will be the next one or is certainly on the list, but, after listening to the Chancellor's response, I am not encouraged in any way to suggest that she will move from her current position.

Mrs Guy: There is a significant event being hosted here on Wednesday by the Women's Policy Group and Melted Parents in relation to childcare. During his meeting, did the Minister raise the issue of expanding tax-free childcare with the Chancellor again?

Mr O'Dowd: Not directly with the Chancellor on that occasion. However, the Member will be aware that, as part of the 2025-26 Budget, the Executive allocated £50 million towards early years and childcare strategy that supports hard-working families by delivering more affordable childcare. The number of children eligible for support has increased by 60% compared with last year, providing that much-needed subsidy, so the Executive have made significant strides in that regard. There was an additional £5 million awarded to childcare as part of one of the monitoring rounds as well. I know the importance of the issue, and I have no doubt that the Executive will continue to focus on it.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, you and I agree that we have a fundamentally broken fiscal and, indeed, constitutional model and that we need to take more power back here and on to this island more generally. Given that we know that the Budget, when it finally comes, will reflect an even greater fiscal squeeze in the UK because of its underperforming economy and a range of other decisions that we do not agree with, is not now the time to take powers and initiative into our own hands and for you to publish your proposals for greater fiscal devolution on a journey to much greater independence for us here and, indeed, change in this island?

Mr O'Dowd: Engagement with the Treasury is already under way in relation to greater fiscal powers for this place. Obviously, it will have to be a final decision for the Executive on which, if any, of those powers are transferred. However, those discussions are already in train. They started and continued from our discussions with the Treasury in relation to the comprehensive spending review and the Holtham report. We then immediately entered discussions around how we finalise the full fiscal framework for this place, including the devolution of tax-varying powers.

Miss Dolan: Minister, what will be in a full fiscal framework?

Mr O'Dowd: It will cover a number of areas including further consideration of Professor Holtham's review of our level of need, Housing Executive borrowing powers and additional fiscal devolution. In my opinion, it is vital that it provides the Executive with the financial tools that we need to deliver more sustainable public finances and public services.

Taxation is obviously a serious and important matter. It will focus the minds of this place and the Executive in relation to our responsibilities and roles here. Taxation is not simply about how you raise more taxes. You can change the level of tax that you raise in certain areas — you might want to increase it — but also in terms of public attitudes and approaches to various health matters, for instance. It is an important lever that we require, and I look forward to continuing the discussions with the Treasury.

Mr O'Dowd: The public consultation on the baby loss certificate scheme commenced on 17 June and runs until 12 September. To date, over 940 responses have been received from individuals and organisations. I am extremely grateful to all who have taken the time to engage. Every response received will help us form a scheme that meets the needs and expectations of those who have been impacted on by the devastating loss of a baby.

As part of the consultation process, my officials also held two stakeholder engagement events last month to hear directly from those who are engaged in the provision of specialist services and who provide support to anyone who has been impacted by baby loss. I strongly encourage anyone who would like to express their views on the scheme please to do so before the consultation closes on 12 September.

Ms Flynn: I thank the Minister for his answer. He touched on some engagement that his Department had carried out. Will he elaborate on the engagement that has taken place specifically with parents to ensure that the scheme meets their needs?

Mr O'Dowd: That is an important point. It is clearly a sensitive and emotive issue, particularly for parents who have lost a baby and have stepped forward to contribute to the consultation, so it is important that we listen carefully to their views. They know best how the scheme can support families. I am grateful for the many hundreds of responses to the consultation that have been received to date. I have also met Sands and the Little Forget Me Nots Trust, which provide support to families after the loss of a baby. My officials, alongside their work with those organisations, have run a concerted social media campaign to encourage widespread engagement with the public consultation. The figure to date — as I said, the number of responses received stands at 940 now — shows how widespread the message is, and I encourage more people to respond.

Mr Frew: I commend the Minister for the progress that has been made on the baby loss certificate scheme. He will know that we as a party have fought for it for a considerable time. It alarms me, however, that the Bill still contains a provision for charging parents for the certificate. Has the Minister solidified his thoughts on charging parents?

Mr O'Dowd: That question was part of the consultation. Without pre-empting the outcome of the consultation, I see the charging element being used not for parents who are collecting a baby loss certificate but in future circumstances in which someone may ask for multiple copies. When legislating, you have to make provision for all possibilities. If charging were to be introduced at a future date, regulations would have to be brought before the Assembly, which means that the Assembly would have the final say.

Ms K Armstrong: Minister, as you said, the consultation closes on 12 September. Have you any idea of the timeline that you and your Department are aiming for to get the report out and to deliver on the legislation? Will it happen in this term?

Mr O'Dowd: We will have to go through the legislative process, but I am fully confident that the issuing of certificates will happen in this mandate.

Mr Carroll: The scheme is obviously a good idea, and I support its general aims, but, Minister, I am concerned about people who come forward. They will get their certificate, but they may be further traumatised, and there is a lack of support out there. I note that the Belfast Trust has only two bereavement midwives and only one family liaison nurse. The last thing that anybody wants is for people to come forward and be further traumatised by the lack of support. Have you had any conversations with the Health Minister about increasing services so that people are not traumatised if they come forward to seek a baby loss certificate?

Mr O'Dowd: Those matters are for the Health Minister and the Belfast Trust. My task as Finance Minister is to present a Budget to the Executive and the Assembly. Once that is agreed, how their budget is used is down to individual Ministers.

Mr O'Dowd: Each Department in the Civil Service is responsible for managing that information locally. My Department, however, has recently completed a review of the Civil Service hybrid working policy. Part of the policy review included the development of a new online system for hybrid working applications to enable management information to be produced on the operation of hybrid working across the Civil Service. That information will include the number of staff who avail themselves of hybrid working arrangements, the number of in-office days and office location. Implementation of the revised policy commenced on 1 September, with full implementation to be completed across all Departments by 31 October 2025. Management information on the operation of hybrid working across the Civil Service will be available later in the year.

Mr Kingston: I thank the Minister for his answer, but I am disappointed that he was not able to provide any statistics on the level of homeworking and in-office working. Perhaps he is saying that they will be available in the future.

I hope that the Minister will encourage greater levels of in-office working. Does he share the concerns raised by bodies such as Belfast Chamber and the Belfast One and Linen Quarter business improvement districts (BIDs) about the impact of COVID and greater homeworking on high street retailers and eateries, and does he agree on there being a need to support their financial viability?

Mr O'Dowd: A policy is in place. It is down to Departments and line managers to manage that policy in working with their staff. The hybrid working policy has advantages for our service, offering flexibility of working location. We remain in a competitive market for the recruitment and retention of staff. The fact that we offer hybrid working where possible is an attractive feature for applicants who are coming into the service and for retaining staff in the service.

I accept that there may be impacts in some locations. There may be a negative impact in some locations and a positive impact in others, where staff are dispersed around the place. A lot of elements come into play with hybrid working. Overall, however, it has proven to be beneficial to the Civil Service and to the delivery of public services.

The new system that we have put in place for measuring will allow me to provide, in the future, figures such as those that you requested, but some of the figures that you require may be available from the individual Departments.

Mr Kelly: The Minister may have answered most of this: although we may get the statistics later on, would the Minister like to expand on the benefits of hybrid working?

Mr O'Dowd: As I said to Mr Kingston, it is advantageous for us, as a significant employer, to be able to say to potential employees — it is also advantageous in retaining employees — that we offer hybrid working where suitable and with the agreement of line managers etc. Each case must be agreed individually. We remain a competitive workplace when jobs are available out there, and people can apply to many different places, perhaps even moving.

The retention — keeping — of experienced staff is important to any organisation. A workforce that is content and satisfied in its workplace is good for productivity. Through the delivery of the service, we have seen that we are able to maintain the delivery of our public services in a managed way.

Mr McGrath: I am possibly seeking this year's award for tenuous link for a supplementary question. [Laughter.]

One reason that some people are not at their desks may be that they are sick, which may be a reflection of the fact that there is an ageing profile in our Civil Service. The Audit Office flagged that as being a concern. Is the Department taking any concrete steps to try to recruit young professionals into roles so that the demographic of the Civil Service can shift away from the cliff edge that is presented by the fact that a greater proportion of the workforce is close to retirement?

Mr O'Dowd: As someone who edges closer to retirement every year, I can say that there is life in the old dog yet, so I do not think that we should dismiss the older generation just yet. All recruitment competitions have to take place on merit and are open to all age ranges. When people apply, the job goes to the best person for it.

Mr O'Dowd: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 5 and 11 together.

The second call for transformation proposals was issued to Departments on 23 June. Twenty-five proposals were submitted by Departments to the Executive Office. Those proposals are being assessed by the Executive Office's reform and transformation team. Officials from my Department's public spending team are supporting Executive Office officials in that assessment. The next step will be for Executive Office officials, once they have completed their assessment, to provide advice to the public-sector transformation board to inform its consideration of the proposals. The board will then provide its recommendations to me, following which I will report to the Executive on the proposals that have been recommended for funding. The board aims to provide its recommendations in October, with a view to releasing funding later this financial year.

Mr Harvey: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. On the successful bids from the first phase, how will the board and, more broadly, the Department ensure that transformation projects are progressed and delivered as quickly as possible?

Mr O'Dowd: That is crucial, and a continuous monitoring process is in place. The public transformation board will monitor the projects on an ongoing basis. That will include experts, who have been put in place for each of the projects, providing feedback on the projects' implementation. Funding for the projects is also time-bound and attached to relevant timescales. There is ongoing analysis of those projects because we want to see value for money, ensure that lessons are being learnt and see how each Department is posing the question and seeking answers as to whether a project should continue and, if so, how it will fund it.

Miss Hargey: Minister, as you said, the transformation board is carrying out important work. There has been a recent expansion of the board's membership. What benefits will that bring?

Mr O'Dowd: Appointments to the board's membership will bring an additional set of skills. The addition of Professor McCarthy and Gareth Hetherington will broaden the skills and expertise that are available to the board and complement those of existing members. The terms of reference for the transformation board have been finalised, which allows us to put the board on a firmer footing. The addition of the new board members will help to strengthen our ability to deliver meaningful transformation in the way that public services are delivered, which, ultimately, will make life better for the people whom we serve.

Mr McGlone: Those sound like noble ideas and projects. What methodology will be used to measure improvement in services and will that be provided to the Assembly?

Mr O'Dowd: As I outlined in my substantive answer, experts are in place to monitor each of the projects and to report back to the transformation board. I have no difficulty with providing information, whether that is to the Committee or, maybe more formally, to the Assembly. Whichever way is most appropriate under the protocols and procedures, I am more than happy to do that at the appropriate time.

Mr O'Dowd: My officials met you at the end of August to provide an update on the Department’s planning considerations in the Coleraine area, which includes County Hall. It is important we have a modern, fit for purpose and correctly sized office estate that is a welcoming environment for people to work collaboratively in.

The first stage in the office estate strategy aims to reduce our in-scope footprint by 40% by 2028 through consolidating the office estate and divesting surplus properties. The second stage of the strategy aims to decarbonise the retained NICS office estate by reducing its reliance on fossil fuel heating and making it more energy efficient, with a view to meeting the sectoral emissions target in the climate action plan. When assessing the accommodation demand in a region, consideration is given to whether the demand can be met using the existing estate or whether it could be met from outside the existing estate. It may be appropriate to engage and partner with local authorities to explore whether an opportunity exists to bring them together to create public service hubs that can provide a range of benefits to residents under one roof.

A review of the Civil Service’s accommodation needs in Coleraine will be undertaken over the coming 12 months. My officials are consulting the Departments that occupy our buildings in the Coleraine area, including County Hall, to collect information and better understand their accommodation needs. Further engagement will continue with Departments to consider how best to address their current and future requirements. Consultation with trade union representatives will, of course, be carried out as that work progresses.

Mr Bradley: I thank the Minister for his answer. Yes, we met at the County Hall recently. It has massive grounds of, off the top of my head, about 30 acres. It is an iconic building in an iconic area of Coleraine, and I am keen to follow up on any progress that there is on the disposal or otherwise of the building. Will the Minister pass on my sincere thanks to his staff for their frank and honest engagement during that meeting?

Mr O'Dowd: I certainly will pass on your thanks to the staff. Thank you for acknowledging the work of the staff. As I said in my original answer, we will review the estate in Coleraine over the next 12 months. At the appropriate stages, I will ensure that you are kept informed.

Ms Ferguson: It is critical to achieve regional balance, particularly for the Foyle constituency in the north-west. Will the Minister outline the steps that the Department is taking to achieve regional balance?

Mr O'Dowd: Civil Service staff are posted in accommodation across the region, including in the Department of Finance's estate and buildings that other Departments own or lease. Six Connect2 hubs opened in August 2022 to allow staff to work remotely at six regional locations in Ballykelly, Ballymena, Bangor, Craigavon, Downpatrick and Omagh as an occasional alternative to working from home. As a result of the hybrid working policy, staff are now working from home. As our society has a rural nature, many of our staff are from those areas, and they are now working in rural settings, such as villages or towns.

Mr McNulty: Minister, have you had any conversations about how reducing footfall in rural offices will impact on the regionally balanced economy?

Mr O'Dowd: That goes back to Mr Kingston's concerns about Belfast and how, in some people's view, the hybrid working policy may have a detrimental impact on Belfast. The people who are not in Belfast on set days are working elsewhere, and, as I said to Ciara, given the nature of our society, many of those people are in rural locations such as villages or towns. The hybrid working policy allows a greater distribution of our staff to different locations at different times. Regionality is always taken into consideration when any actions are taken or decisions made about the relocation or closure of offices.

Mr O'Dowd: Green growth contributes to the priorities in the Programme for Government to:

and on:

In recognition of the importance of those priorities, the Executive earmarked allocations of £15 million and £17 million respectively in Budget 2025-26 for them.

Of the £17 million that has been earmarked for protecting Lough Neagh and the environment, £12 million is for the just transition fund for agriculture, which will help the agriculture sector deliver its contribution to meeting carbon budgets and emissions reduction targets. In addition to those specific allocations, individual Ministers will also be able to utilise their 2025-26 Budget allocations to direct their departmental budget allocations to the agreed Programme for Government priorities. My officials have also undertaken some further analysis to assess the extent of the wider alignment of the Budget 2025-26 to Programme for Government priorities. I hope to be in a position to publish that analysis shortly.

Mr McMurray: I thank the Minister for his answer. Given the growth of renewables, specifically offshore renewables, what assurances can the Minister give to the industries in South Down that any forthcoming finances and policies will be regionally balanced?

Mr O'Dowd: As I said to one of your colleagues, my job as Finance Minister is to present a Budget to the Executive and the Assembly. If and when it is agreed, it is up to each Minister to use that Budget as has been agreed and outlined and to certainly do so in line with all the policies that govern us as Ministers, particularly the Programme for Government. Regional balance is vital, and, as I outlined, it always comes into the equation on any decisions that I make on the positioning of staff or resources.

Mr Gildernew: Minister, what steps are being taken to improve the alignment of Budget data with the Programme for Government?

Mr O'Dowd: That piece of work has started and will have to continue. Obviously, we prioritise our Budget against our Programme for Government. Therefore, as part of the Budget sustainability plan, the Executive committed to the development of a future work plan. My officials recently completed an initial analytical exercise to align Budget allocations with the Programme for Government. The work mapped high-level departmental spending areas to Programme for Government priority missions and well-being domains, using the departmental estimates to identify how those areas contribute to the Programme for Government. It is hoped that the initial analysis will be published shortly.

Mr O'Dowd: I am pleased to say that good progress has been made by my Department in bringing that work forward. In line with my intention to act at pace to make progressive and positive changes to the rating system, I submitted an Executive paper prior to recess on the next steps regarding the maximum capital value and the early payment discount policies. The proposals would generate around £9 million for central and local government.

Ultimately, any change to rating policy requires Executive approval, and there has to be a clear focus on what can be delivered from April 2026 and beyond. Significant work has been undertaken in recent months on the review of small businesses rate relief and non-domestic vacant rating. My officials have already completed the research work and tax base analysis associated with the review. They also completed an extensive series of interviews with key stakeholders over the summer, including representatives of the retail, hospitality and food-to-go sectors, as well as representatives of groups from the wider economy such as the Federation of Small Businesses.

I will consider the options in the coming weeks before briefing Executive colleagues on the next steps. I highlight the fact that, given that the rating system provides a quarter of a billion pounds of support to non-domestic properties, the Executive will need to actively engage with any proposal to generate income through the strategic review process before any decisions can be made to provide additional supports through the same process.

Mr Speaker: We move on to topical questions.

Mr O'Dowd: For the record, there was no underspend in financial transactions capital for the previous year, as the Member knows, because we have this conversation every time we have Question Time or a ministerial statement.

I and my officials have engaged directly with the NIO and the Treasury on how that much welcomed investment of £50 million from the British Government will be used to deliver Casement. I have asked for meetings with my Executive colleagues on those matters, and discussions will take place in due course.

I have heard the Member ask that question of several Ministers over the past number of days. It is one of his six tests.

Mr O'Toole: Yes.

Mr O'Dowd: Mmm. When the Member completes his homework, I will tick the boxes in his test for him. I am still waiting for his homework on a wide range of issues.

I believe that Casement Park will be built. Commitment is required from the Executive and the Assembly to deliver on that and many other areas of the Programme for Government. Yes, I believe that Casement Park will be built.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the answer, Minister, and I am glad that you have read our six tests. You will know that I am not in government; I am in opposition, as is your colleague, uachtarán Shinn Féin, Mary Lou McDonald, who talked yesterday about being in opposition. My job is to ask you questions, because you have power. I did not ask you whether you thought that it would be built; I asked you when it would be built. You did not tell me. You said that it would be built in due course and that you were seeking meetings with your colleagues. Am I to understand that there has been no further progress on delivering Casement Park since the allocation of that £50 million? If I am wrong, please correct me.

Mr O'Dowd: Uachtarán Shinn Féin produces alternative policy documents, alternative Budgets and alternative Programmes for Government.

I am the Minister of Finance. My responsibility is to engage with the Treasury on the release of the £50 million in FTC funding. I have actively and productively followed that through. The timescale for the delivery of Casement is a matter for the GAA and the Communities Minister. I will play my part wholeheartedly and fully in that engagement and will do everything under the responsibilities that fall to me to ensure that it is built. It will be built in the timescale that is required under the funding — the FTC funding is for four years — and other budgetary matters.

I have had similar conversations. You used to talk to us about Magee and ask, "What is going to happen with Magee?". More progress has been made on Magee in this past year than over the past 10 years. You have to move on to a new subject now, and you are right to do so. However, at some stage in the not-too-distant future, you will have to move on to a different subject, because progress will be made on Casement.

Mr O'Dowd: I had a meeting yesterday morning with the Secretary of State, which was to be a pre-meeting for that which we were going to have with the then Housing Minister, Alex Norris. However, as a result of the reshuffles in Whitehall, Mr Norris is no longer in that post, and the meeting planned for today has been postponed until the new Minister reads himself into the brief. Those engagements continue.

I have expressed my frustration to the Secretary of State that there has been such a significant delay since the comprehensive spending review and no confirmation of how the growth fund will be delivered, how it will be split between capital and resource or what will be done to ensure that we do not reach a cliff edge. The lack of information that we can give to the community and voluntary sector is simply unacceptable.

Ms Finnegan: Go raibh maith agat.

Does the Minister agree that the new fund should respect devolved government?

Mr O'Dowd: Without question. It is in the Labour Party's manifesto that it will respect the devolved institutions and, with regard to this matter, local growth funds should be sent back to the devolved institutions. Nobody knows better the needs of our society than its elected representatives. The Assembly and the Executive are the elected representatives of our society, and we should be allowed have the growth fund allocated to us in its entirety and should be allowed to allocate it.

Mr O'Dowd: I am aware of the proposals for England and Wales. The Member will be aware that we have a totally different rating system from that in England and Wales. Here, we have the regional rate, and then each local council sets its rate. In England, I understand that there is a set rate across all local authorities, which is different from what we have here. I am acutely aware of the issue, and I will continue to monitor the situation. The Member will also be aware that we have an ongoing review of our different rating systems, and, if the rating review in England signals a new approach or new ideas that we should explore more quickly than we had originally planned, we can bring that forward.

Mr McMurray: Thank you for your answer, Minister. From that, will the Minister consider some of the proposals, if they are applicable to Northern Ireland, in order to help our businesses?

Mr O'Dowd: We would want to assure ourselves that they are applicable. The grass is not always greener on the other side. Just because one jurisdiction is making a change, it does not necessarily mean that it is the right change of path or direction. As I said, I am aware of the proposals, and we are monitoring them. If that indicates to me that it is worthwhile to explore that pathway further, whether through a consultation or by bringing a review forward faster, I will do so.

Mr O'Dowd: It is not a case of having to direct any Department in that regard. The funding for the A5 is from an Executive funding pot, so any underspends will have to be returned to the centre. My officials have engaged with DFI officials, asking them to estimate as quickly as possible how much capital will be returned in this financial year. Once we have confirmation of that figure, I will bring a paper to the Executive with proposals on how that funding should be reallocated. Ultimately, how that money will be reallocated will be a decision for the Executive.

Ms D Armstrong: I thank the Minister for his reply. Has the delay with the A5 been factored into the next three-year Budget?

Mr O'Dowd: Not as yet, because the appeal is pending, and we will have to wait for the outcome of that. We are progressing our way through engagement with officials in all Departments about preparation for the three-year Budget. It is clearly something that we have to be alert to. There are timescales that are outside our control, but we will be aware of those.

Mr O'Dowd: We all have to approach the issue with great sensitivity, particularly in relation to schools, where we are talking about young people and children. We should all measure our tones around such matters. I await the outcome of the Equality Commission's review of those matters. It is then best that the Executive discuss those matters before any individual moves forward. Always remember that, in those discussions, there are people — very young people and children — who, I have no doubt, as a result of yesterday's announcement, are feeling isolated and hurt.

Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for his answer. Given the strength of feeling around the issues and the feeling of some Civil Service staff that the Civil Service has been influenced by particular ideologies, will the Minister end the association with the widely discredited Stonewall organisation?

Mr O'Dowd: The Civil Service has a rigorous and detailed policy in relation to treating all of its staff with fairness, equality and respect. There are processes in that for anyone who feels that they have not been treated with fairness, equality and respect to have those matters looked into in further detail.

I have renewed my Department's membership of the Stonewall programme. It is only right and proper, given that we have a significant number of employees, that we have access to a diverse range of advice on such matters. My Department does not have to take on board the advice that is given to the Civil Service on such matters. However, as I said in answer to your original question, there are strong views on those matters, but our job as leaders is to ensure that everyone in our society is treated with respect, particularly minorities. We all have to watch our language.

Mr O'Dowd: Gerry, there is no doubt in my mind that you are fully aware that I have no authority over banking in this society — no doubt whatever. You and I have a lot of differences, but we have one thing in common: we stand in solidarity with Palestine. Let us not use party differences and party political niggling — wee digs here and a wee needle here — to disrupt the solidarity that is required for Palestine. Let us stand in solidarity with Palestine and set the party politics aside.

Mr Carroll: Minister, I will stand with you and everybody for Palestine. Saying it is a party dig is a bit of an insulting reply. It was a question about whether your Department had carried out an audit of whether Israeli war bonds go through the North. Yes or no?

Mr O'Dowd: I will repeat my answer to the question. You already know the answer, because you are no hen's toe; you are not slow. You know the processes as well as I do.

Mr Carroll: You are not answering the question.

Mr O'Dowd: But you know the answer.

Mr Carroll: I do not.

Mr O'Dowd: You know the answer. You know the answer, because —.

Mr Speaker: Order. Through the Chair, please.

Mr O'Dowd: You are not asking the question out of concern about Israeli war bonds; you are trying to score cheap political points. I appeal to you — [Interruption.]

I appeal to you and to others to set aside your petty party political point-scoring and stand in solidarity with the people of Palestine.

When people stand in solidarity movements, they often stand beside people with whom they do not agree on everything, but let us agree on this, Gerry: stand in solidarity with Palestine.

Mr Speaker: Miss McAllister cannot be in her seat.

Mr O'Dowd: The Back in Business scheme aims to help bring vibrancy, footfall and investment back to our high streets while providing businesses with a boost at the start of their business journey, thus helping support jobs and bring long-term vacant units back into use. The scheme offers businesses a 50% rates discount for up to two years if they move into premises that were previously used for retail purposes and that have been unoccupied for 12 months or more. So far, there have been 59 successful applications to fund new or expanding businesses through the scheme since its introduction last year. Awards have been made across all 11 council areas. Around £420,000 of rates support has been provided to the successful applicants.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes questions to the Minister of Finance. We now return to questions to the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs on his statement.

Miss McIlveen: The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM) is announcing a new bovine TB action plan today, which will include further wildlife measures. The Minister will be aware of the call from our local industry for a wildlife intervention strategy. Without one, any other proposals are deemed to be unworkable. Will he provide an update on a wildlife intervention strategy for Northern Ireland?

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I thank the Member for her question. It is an important issue, because it affects farmers in Northern Ireland, particularly their mental health. It is a key priority for my Department. We outlined a blueprint for the way forward, and I commend everyone who took part in the stakeholder group, which allowed us to set out that blueprint. Its implementation is key.

It is based on three pillars: people, cattle and wildlife. Let me be crystal clear today that a wildlife intervention strategy is not optional. Rather, it must occur. We must have wildlife intervention on TB. My officials are pulling together a strategy so that we can proceed with it. We need to make sure when we go out to consult on it that it is done correctly. In the time ahead, we will be able to commence the consultation and get people's views on wildlife intervention in order to allow us to tackle TB in Northern Ireland. Alongside that, we are taking measures on people and cattle, and there are further measures that we want to explore with stakeholders so that we can drive down instances of TB, because the levels are not sustainable for farming in Northern Ireland or for my Department.

Mr McMurray: Minister, can you provide an update on the roll-out of the sustainable agriculture programme (SAP)?

Mr Muir: The sustainable agriculture programme is a fundamental intervention from my Department that is worth around £300 million. I managed to secure that funding for this year and future years, and we are the only part of the UK in which that funding is ring-fenced. It was lost in other parts of the UK, and I am determined to ensure that it delivers benefits for farming in Northern Ireland.

A key part of the funding was for the delivery of the farm sustainability transition payment (FSTP) last week. We are now focused on the next delivery phase of the sustainable agriculture programme, which will be the farm sustainability payment (FSP). That will be rolled out from 1 January 2026. It is absolutely critical that we do that, because entitlements have been traded on the basis of its coming into place. We will be engaging with the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee in the time ahead on the roll-out. If Members have concerns, I ask them to contact me or officials. I am happy to discuss their concerns with them. It is key that we get the farm sustainability payment and the associated farm sustainability standards in place. Once we are able to get that payment in place, the focus will turn to diverting the resources that have been put in place to get funding out the door to deliver Farming with Nature and also sheep support.

It is absolutely critical that we assist farmers with nature-friendly farming. That is something that I heard very clearly at Fields Good, the regenerative agriculture festival, at the weekend. It is something that farmers want to see scaled up and rolled out.

My ambition is that Farming with Nature will be rolled out and that the cliff edge with the environmental farming scheme (EFS) be addressed, because doing that is key. Alongside that, we must deliver a sheep support scheme. If we get the farm sustainability payment and the farm sustainability standards agreed, we can deliver sheep support for people in Northern Ireland. Let us work together, collectively; let us deliver this flagship policy of support; and let us deliver a prosperous and bright future for farming in Northern Ireland.

Ms D Armstrong: I thank the Minister for his responses so far. He answered this question in some way in his response to Mr McCrossan. As the Minister knows, I represent a border area that is grappling with record levels of TB in cattle herds. Farming families will have seen the statement as having fairly weak words in relation to:

Will the Minister explain in greater detail any progress that has been achieved in reducing the prevalence of bovine TB on the island? Will he join me in meeting some farmers in County Fermanagh who have been affected?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Diana. I am happy to consider any invites, but matching them with my diary can be a challenge.

It has been outlined that there will be further announcements from DAFM, this week, regarding an all-island approach around TB. There has been engagement with DAFM, at official level and Minister to Minister, on a Shared Island initiative for tackling TB on an all-Ireland basis. There is real opportunity around that. I am keen to get that across the line as soon as we can, because it will be a practical measure that will help farmers, North and South. I will continue to engage with Minister Heydon on that, because it is critical that we drive down the prevalence of TB. I have given a commitment that, as long as I have the budget, we will continue the 100% compensation, but that is not good enough. We also need to drive down the incidence so that we can deal with the impact that it has on family farms in Northern Ireland.

Mr McAleer: I thank the Minister for his statement. Paragraph 23 makes reference to cooperation on rural development. Will the Minister provide an update on his Department's development of the rural policy here and the Connected Hubs, which are mentioned in the rural development part of his statement?

Mr Muir: That is an important issue, because, post Brexit, the loss of the rural development programme is something that has not, perhaps, been given as much of a profile. It was significant funding that supported rural communities across Northern Ireland, and we lost it as a result of Brexit. It is one of the many consequences of Brexit that have been felt across Northern Ireland. We are working together, particularly in relation to PEACE PLUS initiatives, to support rural communities. We are also co-designing a future rural policy for Northern Ireland. Hopefully, we will go out to consult on that soon so that we can get views taken. We are also engaging, through the Department of Finance, on future funding arrangements. We have had follow-on funding from EU funding, such as the Levelling Up Fund, for instance. I have made a clear case to the Finance Minister that rural development should be a key feature of any future funding arrangements to replace the funds that we had during membership of the European Union, and we will continue to engage on that. It is important that we deliver that support to rural communities, and we will continue to roll out well-established schemes, such as the tackling rural poverty and social isolation framework (TRPSI). It is important that we deliver that to rural communities.

Mr Irwin: I thank the Minister for his answers so far. I welcome the Minister's comments in relation to a wildlife intervention regarding TB. Is the Minister concerned, as I am, that the incidence of TB continues to rise? Does he accept that it is vital that every effort is made to deal with the situation as soon as possible?

Mr Muir: I agree with the Member entirely — this is a positive question time — because it is a key issue for the farming community in Northern Ireland. The levels are not sustainable, and the continued rise causes me a great concern, due to the impact on family farming in Northern Ireland, agriculture more broadly and the Department. I thank the Finance Minister for the financial support that he has given me, which has allowed us to keep the compensation, but we have to drive down the incidence. Ultimately, the only way that we are going to do that is by doing it together. I had a constructive meeting with the Ulster Farmers' Union on the issue — hearing feedback on what we are doing. We are happy to engage — we will engage through the stakeholder group — about any other measures that we can use to drive this down, and we are preparing to consult on a wildlife intervention strategy. I have been clear, and I reiterate it today: wildlife intervention is not optional; it must occur. However, when we are doing the consultation and formulating it, we need to do it correctly, because it is important that we deliver an intervention that is legally robust.

Ms Mulholland: Will the Minister detail the €80 million investment in rural development under PEACE PLUS, please?

Mr Muir: That is no problem. The PEACE PLUS funding is something that I have been very grateful for, and it is something that, together, we can deliver on the ground to people. DAERA is partnering with DRCDG and SEUPB, the Special EU Programmes Body — apologies for all the acronyms — to provide funding of €80 million to two PEACE PLUS investment areas that focus on rural issues. That partnership means that we can achieve much more by contributing to resilient, vibrant and prosperous rural communities in which people want to live, work, visit and invest. Investment area 2.4, entitled, "Smart Towns and Villages", has a budget of €30 million and aims to help citizens and communities to access and utilise information and communication technology. Investment area 4.2, entitled "Rural Regeneration and Social Inclusion", has a budget of €50 million and aims to support social, economic and environmental projects to create healthy rural communities. Letters of offer have been issued to successful projects under call 1 of investment area 2.4 and investment area 4.2. The steering committee of call 2 on investment area 2.4 will meet in October of this year, after which successful projects will be notified.

Mr T Buchanan: Minister, thank you for your statement. Will you provide details on the humane slaughter contingency planning exercise for exotic disease in October? When did exercise that last take place?

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for his question. That is a key issue for us. I outlined in the environment sector statement the concerns that exist about the situation in Cork with the Asian hornet. I made a statement just before recess about the threats to us in Northern Ireland from that, and I want to take a moment to talk about them.

We had foot-and-mouth disease on the European continent. I have not heard many reports about that of late but that does cause me concern. We had bluetongue, so I have made the vaccine available if people want to use it. Vigilance is paramount because the risk of that arriving in Northern Ireland remains, which is of concern. We are moving into autumn and winter, and we know the impact that avian influenza had last season. It is really important that there is an emphasis on biosecurity because avian influenza can have a significant impact on farming. There have been good working relations but the impact would be significant.

Another issue, which was covered on 'Farming Today' on BBC Radio 4 yesterday, is biosecurity with regard to the movement of illegal meat products from the European continent into GB, and the potential for them to arrive in Northern Ireland. Alistair Carmichael, Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, outlined the Committee's concerns about the movement of such products into Dover. I will continue to engage with the UK Government on their need to strengthen biosecurity in GB because the potential for those products to arrive in Northern Ireland is a real concern.

Once we have UK and EU agreement in place, there will, obviously, be reduced checks between GB and NI. That is welcome and, I think, something that we all want, but there is concern around biosecurity, and we need to reiterate its importance. Alongside that, we need to work North/South because we are a single epidemiological area, and the Chief Veterinary Officers, North and South, continue to work on those issues.

Mr Mathison: Minister, you referenced biosecurity in your previous answer. Will you provide a more detailed update on your efforts to ensure biosecurity on the island of Ireland?

Mr Muir: The key focus is on working together, North and South. We do a lot through the North/South Ministerial Council but officials also do that on a regular basis. The key concern for me is, as I have outlined, movements of products into GB and the inadequacy of the border target operating model (BTOM). That concern has been raised not just by me but by the Scottish and the Welsh. That needs to change, and we have been engaging collectively with DEFRA on that because we need to make sure that those products do not come into Northern Ireland. We have a fantastic agri-food system. We should be very proud of the high standards of animal welfare here and the quality of the food that we produce, and we should not allow them to be undermined by illegal imports.

Mr Dickson: Minister, you have made a reasonable amount of comment on the control of TB, but what other work have you been doing collaboratively, on a North/South basis, on improving animal health and disease prevention?

Mr Muir: There has been significant engagement on that, particularly on avian influenza. We ensure that we move together on that and have collective messaging. We have also been engaging on bluetongue. We decided to make the vaccine available in the North. Ministers in the South decided not to, but we did that through a process of communication, respecting the different decisions on that.

As we move forward, there is a need for continuing engagement, particularly on equine welfare. We are very aware of that through our obligations in animal health law, North and South.

Mrs Guy: I ask the Minister for an update on the just transition fund for agriculture.

Mr Muir: There is a commitment in the climate change legislation to set up a just transition fund for agriculture. I made a bid, alongside the Finance Minister, to the UK Government for funding for that as part of the Budget that the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in October last year. That bid was not successful, so I engaged with the Finance Minister locally and managed to secure over £12 million for a just transition fund for agriculture.

It is very important that we understand that just transition is about not just our climate obligations but the environment more broadly. I have engaged and will continue to engage with the Finance Minister because I want to see that just transition fund for agriculture increased. It will be new and additional capital funding to support farmers and agriculture more broadly in Northern Ireland. What does that mean? It means my seeking funding for a sustainable farm investment scheme so that we can assist farmers in taking up technologies that will allow us to reduce our nutrient loss into waterways and reduce ammonia emissions. That assistance can include grant funding for low-emission slurry spreading equipment (LESSE) technology. I need the funding for that so that I can assist farmers on the road ahead, and I will continue to engage with the Finance Minister on it.

However, it goes beyond that. There are many other technology interventions that we can make to improve the environment for Northern Ireland and assist with on-farm productivity. Therefore, I need a significant increase to the just transition fund for agriculture. If we are going to talk about a just transition, I need the funding to assist farmers.

Mr Gaston: Minister, given that bovine TB is costing your Department over £55 million a year, which is almost double the average spend of just a decade ago, with more than two thirds of that going on compensation, taking action now is crucial. You mentioned ongoing work on the issue through the wildlife intervention programme. Are you considering a badger cull? Is a future vaccine on your radar? Will you set out today the interventions that you are looking at? That is what the farmer wants to know, not what will potentially happen down the line. We want to know what you are looking at today.

Mr Muir: I will deal with those questions in two parts. There is the consideration of a pilot on TB that DEFRA is progressing. We are watching that closely as it progresses.

I as Minister and we as a Department have to take lessons from the previous judicial review on wildlife intervention. It would be negligent if we did not. It is important that, when we proceed to a consultation, it is done correctly. The worst thing for me, as Minister, would be to lead people down a garden path to a situation where we are not able to deliver a resolution to the issue. I am not about that; I am about being honest with people about the challenges that we face and doing things correctly. We will go out to consult on a wildlife intervention. I encourage everyone to feed into that, and we will take decisions on the back of the consultation. It is important that we do that.

Alongside that, there are many other measures that we can take on the three pillars of people, cattle and wildlife. I commend the stakeholder group, which involves the farming industry and environmental groups working together to deliver those interventions. I will continue to support the Chief Veterinary Officer as the chair of that group.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ladies and gentlemen, let us take our ease for a few moments while we change the personnel at the top Table and everybody gets ready for the next item of business.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): I beg to move

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

Mr Nesbitt: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker.

The Mental Health Bill introduced in the UK Parliament in November last year reforms the Mental Health Act 1983, which governs compulsory detention and treatment in England and Wales. That Act is the equivalent of our Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986. This Bill enhances patients' autonomy, tightens detention criteria, increases review frequency and removes prisons and police stations as places of safety. None of those measures will extend to Northern Ireland, but, today, we address an amendment extending specific provisions to this place.

That amendment seeks to address a gap in Human Rights Act 1998 protections for mental health patients following the 2024 England and Wales High Court ruling in the case of Sammut v Next Steps Mental Healthcare Ltd. The amendment would ensure that private providers delivering certain mental health services, when funded or arranged by public bodies, are subject to Human Rights Act obligations. Although health and social care are devolved matters, the Assembly cannot directly amend the Human Rights Act, which is a reserved matter that requires the Assembly's consent for Northern Ireland application. Therefore, this legislative consent motion (LCM) is the only mechanism to extend the protections, and, without it, Northern Ireland risks disparities in human rights protections compared with the rest of the United Kingdom.

I will move to the detail of the amendment. Specifically, to remove any doubt on the matter following the Sammut ruling, the amendment designates private providers as exercising public functions under section 6(3)(b) of the Human Rights Act when providing aftercare services post detention and voluntary inpatient treatment or health assessments. As I mentioned, although no private inpatient providers currently operate in Northern Ireland, the amendment future-proofs us should private inpatient services of that type that are publicly funded or commissioned open here in the future. That will ensure that they are held to the same human rights standards as in other UK jurisdictions. That aligns with the Bamford principles by enhancing patients' rights and dignity while ensuring uniformity and accountability.

The UK Government's Department of Health and Social Care has worked closely with my Department to align the amendment with Northern Ireland's mental health framework, particularly its aftercare provisions, and I thank officials for their engagement. Consultation has been led by the Department of Health and Social Care. My Department has engaged the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and awaits its response. The amendment enjoyed cross-party support in Westminster, with no Northern Ireland-specific concerns having been raised in parliamentary debates. The Health Committee supports the legislative consent motion in principle, and its report has been shared with the Westminster Bill team. My Department's screening shows no adverse equality or rural impacts but shows benefits for patients through enhanced private provider accountability. It is my assessment that the amendment promotes equality by extending European Convention rights and protections to mental health patients regardless of provider type.

Failure to support the motion would exclude Northern Ireland from the protections. Approving the motion will demonstrate our dedication to a rights-based mental health system, align with our legislative framework and uphold Bamford's vision. Furthermore, it will ensure, beyond doubt, that private providers that provide services on behalf of public authorities are accountable in the same way as public authorities are at present. I commend the legislative consent motion to the House and urge Members to support it.

Mr McGuigan (The Chairperson of the Committee for Health): I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Health Committee and confirm its support for the motion that the Minister of Health has brought to the House today.

The Mental Health Bill looks to modernise the Mental Health Act 1983. It will enhance patient autonomy, rights and transparency; tighten the detention criteria in the 1983 Act and provide for more frequent reviews; limit the period that people with autism or learning disability can be detained; and remove prisons and police stations as places of safety.

The Mental Health (NI) Order 1986 governs mental health here, and therefore the Mental Health Bill does not apply. However, on 3 June 2025, an amendment was tabled. That amendment engages the Human Rights Act, which is a reserved matter, but it affects devolved health and social care in the North. Therefore, the amendment falls within the competence of the Assembly, and the LCM is required to include the North in that part of the Bill. The amendment seeks to designate private providers that deliver publicly funded mental health services as public authorities under section 6(3)(b) of the Human Rights Act when delivering specific services, therefore assuring compliance, as the Minister said, with the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Department advised that those who are impacted on by the amendment include mental health patients; private health and care providers that are commissioned now or in the future; the Department of Health and trusts, which are responsible for arranging and paying for services.

The Committee was briefed by officials on the amendment to the Mental Health Bill on 19 June 2025. The Committee had some concerns in relation to the timing of the laying of the LCM and the ability of the Committee and the Assembly to consider and approve or not approve it. At the briefing, officials confirmed that legislative consent is required for the amendment and that the date for the debate on the motion would be in September. Officials also advised that the final reporting stage at Westminster would not be moved until after the Assembly had an opportunity to consider the LCM.

Committee members sought further information on the implications of the LCM for patients and services here. Officials confirmed that the amendment relates only to private providers of mental health inpatient services that are paid for by public money. Officials also confirmed that, at present, there are no private mental health providers in the North that receive mental health patients as inpatients. Therefore, as the Minister outlined, the amendment will future-proof protections. Members received assurances that, were there to be a private provider of those services in the future, processes would be put in place to ensure compliance.

Following the briefing, the Committee agreed that it was content to support the LCM in order to ensure equitable human rights protections for patients here. Sin sin.

Mr McGrath: I do not intend to speak on the motion for very long. At its core, the LCM is a piece of housekeeping legislation that ensures that any changes that take place are agreed here and the provisions are there for the future. We do not know whether it will be used. Currently, it will not be used, because we do not have those private providers, but there may be a day when we do have them, if such a decision is taken. It strikes me that, with all the additional pressures that we put on our mental health service, it is about having the right resources in place to address the implementation of any legislation.

I am sure that there are many things that we could accuse the Health Minister of or throw at him, but we certainly cannot accuse him of not being at the forefront, leading on mental health. He has raised that issue time and time again as an MLA. However, we know that the Executive are not providing him with the funding that is needed to adequately implement all strands of mental health provision. We can look at the wider impacts in society. I look at many events that took place in my constituency over the summer in which mental health was a key cause of some very unfortunate crimes, of people losing their lives and of other events. Having resources in place for mental health is critical. Maybe the Minister will give us a bit of background on whether there are absolutely no resource implications as a result of the LCM or what future resource might be required, were we to change the way that we deliver that type of service.

Mr Robinson: Like others, I support the LCM on the Mental Health Bill and the proposed amendment to extend its provisions to Northern Ireland. It is important that the most vulnerable in our society are protected, including through access to care and legal safeguards that uphold their rights.

When public money is spent on mental health services, whether they are delivered by the NHS or private providers, those services must be delivered with the same level of accountability, respect for rights and legal standards. We can all point to how mental health services in Northern Ireland are under huge pressure. We hear the demands from our constituents. While demand rises, the role of private providers will obviously grow. In that context, it is even more important that we maintain one clear legal framework for all providers that provide publicly funded care, especially into the future. Whilst statutory providers are clearly bound by the Human Rights Act, some ambiguity remains regarding private entities that are delivering publicly funded care. The amendment should tighten that gap and reinforce a simple but powerful principle: if a service is paid for with public funds, it must respect the public's rights, especially when that service involves the care of individuals who are experiencing a mental health crisis.

Mental health legislation is a devolved matter. It is entirely proper that the Assembly has the opportunity to consent to provisions that fall within our legislative competence. By doing so, we can affirm that the Assembly has a commitment to consistent standards of care and human rights across jurisdictions. While it is seen as a technical adjustment, you could also say that it allows for a future step change in accountability and the protection of some of the most vulnerable members of society, and that, no matter who delivers mental health care, the rights of patients must come first. It is therefore positive for those who are in receipt of mental health services now or in the future, whether they are from public or private providers, that they can rely on the full protection of the law in the future. I support the LCM.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Alan. I now call on the Minister of Health to conclude —. Sorry, I call Danny Donnelly. Sorry, Danny. I am away ahead of myself. It is a mortal sin. Danny, go ahead. Thank you.

Mr Donnelly: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

The motion is about fairness and consistency. It is about ensuring that people in Northern Ireland who rely on mental health services have the same protections wherever their care is delivered and whoever delivers it. A court judgement in England exposed a serious flaw. It revealed that, where a private organisation is commissioned to deliver mental health care that is paid for with public money, the Human Rights Act does not always apply. In practice, that meant that patients who received publicly funded care in those settings could not rely on the same protection as those who were treated directly by the state. That gap in protection is unacceptable. It shows a two-tier system where the rights that you can exercise depend not on your needs but on whether the care is provided by the NHS directly or by a provider under contract. That cannot be right, and it cannot be allowed to remain.

One of the most important aspects of the motion is that it gives reassurance to patients and families. It tells them that, no matter how care is arranged, their rights will not be diluted. It gives a level of trust in a system that, for too long, has struggled under pressure and left many people feeling vulnerable and unheard. By closing that gap, we are providing better protections and standing behind people who use mental health services, ensuring that the protections that they deserve are firmly in place. In Northern Ireland, our mental health services are governed under separate legislation. At present, there are no private providers offering inpatient mental health services in the jurisdiction. However, as other Members have noted, services evolve, pressures rise, and the day may come when private providers are commissioned to deliver inpatient care. The LCM ensures that, if that happens, patients here will not be left behind and will have the same fundamental protections as people elsewhere in the UK.

Of course, passing this law is only one part of the picture. I hope that, if private providers do come into the system here, correct pathways, oversight mechanisms and regulatory bodies are firmly in place to make sure that those protections are meaningful in practice. There is still work to do to ensure that standards are upheld at the highest level and that rights are not just promised in legislation but lived and enforced in reality. We have a chance to learn from serious flaws that were exposed in England, where gaps in the law left families without protections on which they should have been able to rely. There is an opportunity to act differently in Northern Ireland and to close that gap before it even opens. Too often, our health service finds itself in reactive mode, responding to crises after they have already caused harm. This Bill does the opposite: it is forward-thinking, it is problem-solving, and it prevents potential injustice before it even reaches our system. That is exactly the kind of approach that we need more of across the health service.

The LCM is therefore the right step. It future-proofs our health system and sends a clear message that human rights must follow the person and not the provider. It ensures that people in Northern Ireland who rely on mental health services will be protected with the same fairness and dignity as anyone across these islands. I support the motion.

My Health Committee colleague Nuala McAllister was also due to speak on the motion. Regrettably, she is unable to attend the debate. I hope that that will be swiftly resolved.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Danny. Apologies for not calling you, but you got your own back.

I call — definitely this time — the Minister of Health to conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech on the motion.

Mr Nesbitt: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank the Members who contributed to the debate. Their thoughtful contributions gave me a sense of a collective commitment to safeguarding the rights and dignity of those with mental health conditions, learning disabilities or a diagnosis of autism.

I will not delay the House. Mr McGrath was the only Member who raised a question, which was about the costs. I can assure him that no direct costs are associated with the legislative consent motion and that there is no cost to the trusts. If we end up in a position in which there are private providers — that might be a matter of regret, because I would rather that it be done by Health and Social Care — there could be compliance costs, but that is not a matter for us.

Mr McGrath said that the issue was one of housekeeping. For me, it is about ensuring that the house looks after its guests fairly and equitably and pays proper attention to their rights and dignity.

Mr McGuigan (The Chairperson of the Committee for Health): The Adult Protection Bill passed its Second —. Sorry. I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry, Philip. Apologising has become the trend for some.

The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate. I call the Chairperson of the Committee for Health to open the debate on the motion.

Mr McGuigan: Tá brón orm.

The Adult Protection Bill passed its Second Stage on 30 June 2025 and was referred to the Committee the following working day. The Bill is the result of a number of significant adult safeguarding failures in places such as Dunmurry Manor care home and Muckamore Abbey Hospital. The Bill has 51 clauses and makes provisions in areas such as inquiries; powers of investigation; assessment, removal, banning and protection orders; the establishment of the Adult Protection Board; offences involving ill treatment or wilful neglect; and the regulation of CCTV.

In his opening remarks at Second Stage, the Minister outlined the importance of the legislation, which had been five years in the making. I thank the Minister for saying in his closing remarks in the debate that he was relaxed about the Committee's intention to seek to extend the Committee Stage to March 2026.

The Committee places high importance on the legislation and understands that its primary role is to scrutinise legislation. The Committee has commenced its work at pace, and it issued a call for evidence over the summer. The Committee requests an extension of the Committee Stage to 27 March 2026 to allow it time to scrutinise the clauses of the Bill.

The Bill affects some of our most vulnerable people and, clearly, their families. The Committee will consider how to engage with those who are most impacted on by the Bill. The Bill covers a number of complex and sensitive issues, including assessment, removal and banning orders and the use of CCTV. The Committee will have to consider very carefully those complex issues and any possible amendments to the Bill.

It is the Committee's intention, if it can do so, to report on the Bill earlier than 27 March 2026, but it asks for this extension. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr Kearney: I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. An amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, so the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate.

Mr Kearney: "Leave now or face obliteration". That was the message that was received this morning by children in Gaza who picked up leaflets that were dropped by the Israeli military. As of August 2025, a catastrophic famine in Gaza has been confirmed. The situation in Gaza is beyond apocalyptic. The horror is absolutely unimaginable. Four hundred Palestinians have died from starvation, including 135 Gazan children. One in three children is acutely malnourished. Starvation is being used as a weapon of war. One child is killed every hour, and Gaza is now the most dangerous place on the planet for children to live. A deliberate, man-made famine is being inflicted on a defenceless population, who are being murdered systematically as they search for food.

Since the launch of the US-funded Gaza Humanitarian Foundation in May 2025, over 2,000 Palestinians have been killed at so-called humanitarian aid distribution sites. In reality, they are nothing more than deathtraps. The United Nations also warns that enforced disappearances of starving civilians, including children, have been reported at those sites. Israel's vicious and brutal onslaught on Gaza and the West Bank has resulted in the death of over 64,000 Palestinians, 20,000 of whom are now recorded as being children. The actual death toll is much higher, because what is not known is the number of bodies that lie lifeless beneath the rubble.

There are no safe places in Gaza, despite the Israeli black propaganda. Israel's indiscriminate warmongering has resulted in the murder of journalists and healthcare, civil defence and humanitarian aid workers. The United Nations has asserted that over two million people are being trapped, bombed and starved. Israel's murderous intent for the region cannot go unchallenged. This Israeli regime is now applying a systematic, scorched-earth strategy in Gaza. Rafah, which was the second-largest city on the strip, no longer exists. It has been turned into rubble. Currently, every high-rise building remaining in Gaza City is being destroyed daily. A ruthless holocaust is being inflicted on the Palestinian people in Gaza and the West Bank.

The launch of the Global Sumud flotilla is a powerful demonstration by people from all over the world to demand the end to this genocide. Currently, the freedom flotilla has 50 boats from 44 countries spanning six continents, and it is the largest humanitarian fleet in history. Yet, in another outrage this morning, the flotilla has been bombed with a drone. Last weekend, the Global Day of Action for Gaza mobilised millions around the world, and tens of thousands of people marched in our cities, towns and villages across Ireland and elsewhere in solidarity with the Palestinian people, calling for the US and British Governments to end their complicity, to stop the slaughter and to support a ceasefire. So in some respects, the tide of world opinion is beginning to turn.

Ordinary people all over the world understand what they are seeing daily in their media: a desperate people being deliberately starved, displaced and murdered in a sustained genocide.

Israel stands in defiance of international law and the multilateral order. It is in violation of the Geneva conventions, the Rome statute, the genocide convention and the UN charter. It is in breach of the international obligations that an occupying power must observe. The Israelis and those who support them are destroying every diplomatic and humanitarian norm that has guided the world over the past eight decades.

In violation of the UN headquarters agreement obligation, the US itself, in another disgraceful act of complicity, has refused to grant entry visas for the Palestinian delegation to attend the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York today. That US-Israeli censorship will only bring greater focus on the queue of countries that are now assembling at the UNGA to recognise the state of Palestine. That UNGA will mark 23 months of sustained genocidal war against the Palestinian people, and we must hope that those gathered at the Assembly will call for action under the "Uniting for Peace" resolution, empowering the General Assembly to circumvent the ongoing obstruction that has been taking place at the Security Council with the misuse — the egregious misuse — of vetoes. The most powerful in the international community can no longer ignore or stay silent in the face of Israel's war crimes. Their prevarication and conditionality are now morally and politically bankrupt.

Israel is a terrorist state. Its latest terrorist act was demonstrated no earlier than today when it bombed the Hamas negotiation team in Doha, Qatar, while it was reviewing the proposals and ideas that it was supplied with, via the Qataris, by the United States. What happened? The very people who were looking at the proposals and ideas for progressing a ceasefire were bombed by the terrorists.

Comprehensive and robust actions must be taken to end the genocide and hold Israel to account for its crimes against humanity in the Palestinian territories. There must be an immediate and permanent ceasefire. Israel must lift the illegal blockade on humanitarian aid into the Strip. Israel must be held accountable for its war crimes and its state terrorism. Netanyahu and Gallant must be brought before the International Criminal Court. The world, particularly the Global North, must finally recognise the Palestinian right to self-determination and statehood.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Go raibh maith agat

, Declan [Interruption.]

I am sorry. I will not have anybody shouting from a sedentary position, please. Every motion is deserving of the same humility, and I ask people to be mindful of that.

I call Doug Beattie to move the amendment.

Mr Beattie: I beg to move the following amendment:

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

Mr Beattie: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. My contribution will be quite short, because we have debated the issue long and hard, and all political parties have laid out their stall on it. It may make people feel a little more comfortable if they are able to talk about the matter, but, in reality, it does absolutely nothing for the people in the region, who continue to suffer.

I have to correct something, however: the flotilla was not bombed. Somebody fired a ship's flare that went off on the deck, but that does not matter; it is no issue.

I will reiterate the Ulster Unionist Party's position on what is happening in Gaza: we affirm that all life, be that Palestinian or Israeli, is of equal value and must be protected under international law. The party rejects any form of collective punishment. There should be an immediate ceasefire and a return to the negotiations. Humanitarian aid should be allowed into Gaza unrestricted, and the United Nations should take over control of that operation. There should be an immediate release without preconditions of all the hostages, even those who are already dead. Their families want their bodies back. The UN should establish a conflict-monitoring force such as we have here in Europe in the form of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). We support the Oslo agreement and want to see a two-state solution. That is where we have always been. That has not changed. I am just reiterating that position.

Let me be clear, however: starvation should never be used as a weapon of war. Rape should never be used as a weapon of war. Torture should never be used as a weapon of war. Hostage-taking, terrorism and indiscriminate targeting of civilians should not be used as weapons of war.

A lot of what I have just said is in the Sinn Féin motion. I have said nothing that is really outside of it, but Sinn Féin forgets to mention Hamas and what it has to do with the conflict. In our amendment, we have tried to add a bit of balance yet again — nothing more. This might surprise everybody, but, regardless of whether you are a terrorist organisation with a political party heading you up or you are a standing military, you are bound by humanitarian laws in conflict: necessity, humanity, proportionality and distinction. Hamas, the Israelis and the Palestinian West Bank state are all bound and governed by those laws.

Have the Israeli Government breached those principles? Yes, they have. Has Hamas breached them? Yes, it has. Yet, nowhere in the motion or in any of the motions that we have had on Gaza has there been criticism of Hamas. Hamas is a terrorist organisation that is linked to Hezbollah and the Houthis and controlled by the Iranian terror network and an Iranian Government who stood in China with the Chinese, Russian and North Korean heads of state. Hamas applauded, just yesterday, the murder of six Israelis — applauded it. It initiated the present round of conflicts with the appalling actions of 7 October 2023 and said that it would do it again and again. The human rights abuses of its own people, including minority groups, go unchecked, and it indoctrinates children into violence, fails to protect women and girls from gender-based violence, supports the marriage of girls under the age of 15 and supports violence within the family. Hamas is also stealing humanitarian aid and selling it on the black market. Sometimes, when we have such debates, we find ourselves thinking that Hamas has nothing whatever to do with what has happened in the region, but it absolutely does. We need to have balance. That is not an excuse, one way or the other, but it is a balance.

I hear an awful lot of rhetoric, which is anti-British in many ways, that tries to make out that the UK is arming the Israelis. The truth is that the United Kingdom is not. It gives very little, and what it gives is mostly for the F-35 global project. Do you know who arms the Israelis? The United States. Guess how it does it: through Shannon Airport. Thousands of tons of equipment and thousands of military personnel go through Shannon Airport on the way to the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). That is where they go. I hear not a single chirp about that, and we should hear about it. If people really want to have an impact from here in the West on what is happening there, do you know what they need to do? Get themselves down to Shannon Airport, stick a placard up and stand there, because that is where they will get an impact.

A fact that I know to be true is that, when conflicts start, innocent people pay the price — innocent Palestinian men, women and children and innocent Israeli men, women and children. That will not end until the conflict and its causes end. That requires negotiation and a two-state solution, as laid out in the Oslo agreement.

It is pretty easy to support the Sinn Féin motion. It is uncontroversial. I will support it. All the right ingredients are in there, so I can support it, and I will get pats on the back when we go out of here. It is harder, however, to put balance into something and to turn around and say, "No, Hamas: you are a terrorist organisation, and what you did on 7 October" — what Hamas did then did not start the wider conflict, and I am not saying that it did, but it did start the present round of conflict — "was wrong. The rape, torture and murder was wrong". It is harder to go for balance, but that is all our amendment does: it provides balance.

I ask Members to look at our amendment. It has all the ingredients that are in the motion, and the only difference is that we ask people to understand that Hamas is not an innocent bystander to what is happening in the Middle East.

Mr Frew: I acknowledge the Sinn Féin motion — just words on a page — knowing fine rightly that those words on a page will have no impact or effect whatever. Yesterday, unionists were lambasted for tabling a motion about the Windsor framework and the protocol and the damage that they do to businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland. This is the first opportunity that Sinn Féin has had to table a motion, and it is on Gaza. The situation in Gaza is serious. The war in the Middle East is hell, but the motion will not have one bit of an effect — it will not change one child's life — yet Sinn Féin has tabled it. I look forward to Sinn Féin being consistent and tabling motions on Ukraine, Myanmar, Syria, Sudan, South Sudan, Somalia, Congo, Mali and Haiti — I could go on to list all the countries that are involved in wars.

War is hell, and the people who are most affected by war are innocent civilians. Does history not teach us that a consequence of war is famine? Members on these Benches and from all parties on this side of the House have always been consistent in condemning actions by the Israeli state whenever they needed to be condemned. We do so again today. However, I have never heard Sinn Féin condemn Hamas. It is Hamas that has had its jackboot on the Palestinian people for years and years, and it is Hamas that will be the barrier to a two-state solution in the region, because, if there were to be a two-state solution tomorrow, the Palestinian people would be locked into a constant Hamas regime that would do them down.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes, I will.

Mr O'Toole: The Member says that Hamas would be the barrier to a two-state solution. I am not and have never been a supporter of Hamas. I have criticised Hamas multiple times in the Chamber. Does the Member accept, however, that Israeli West Bank settler terrorism, violence and illegal settlements also represent a fundamental barrier to a two-state solution? Will the Member say that?

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

Mr Frew: I will say it again: we have always condemned Israeli state actions that fall short of any convention or any humanitarian law. That is the thing about this party and about others. We have consistently tabled amendments, and we supported the Ulster Unionist Party amendment the last time, which was a balance. The UUP will say that the amendment that it has tabled today offers a balance. We do not necessarily agree with that sentiment, but that party has tried, whereas no effort is being made by Sinn Féin to be balanced in this regard. Therefore, when Sinn Féin utters words on Gaza, that is propaganda. It can be nothing but propaganda because it is not balanced. It is propaganda.

Mr Donnelly: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes, I will.

Mr Donnelly: Thank you. I heard you say that you support criticism of, or that you have criticised, the Israeli state at times. I have yet to hear any criticism of the Israeli state and Israeli state actions in what you have said. Can you clarify that?

Mr Frew: Yes, I can. I can very clearly state that starvation should not be used as an action of war. That is repulsive to me as someone who served in the Royal Irish. I could never abide by that under the Geneva Convention. My colleague Doug Beattie has raised that issue time and time again. It is really important that state forces, from any state, abide by the Geneva Convention, and, if they lapse from or breach that convention, they should be investigated, and people should be put on trial. That should be the case, and we have always been consistent on that. However, Sinn Féin will ignore and, in fact, cheerlead, at times, the actions of Hamas. If Hamas yearned for peace, it could release all the hostages that it holds today. Where is Sinn Féin calling for the release of hostages today, yesterday, the month before? They should never have been held in captivity, yet they have been held for months and months and months. Hamas will not even release dead bodies. Hamas could end this war tomorrow if it showed that commitment to release hostages, but it chooses not to. Sinn Féin chooses to ignore that very important piece of information, so I plead today that the House recognise the hurt that Hamas has caused not only in the state of Israel but for its own people.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Mr Frew: Thank you.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Paul.

Mr Tennyson: The situation in Gaza is a man-made humanitarian catastrophe. Over 63,000 people have been killed, and many more have been maimed and injured. The strip lies in ruins, and famine now grips the population. Over 1,400 health workers, over 200 journalists and over 100 aid workers have been murdered. When children are shot while collecting aid, families are forcibly displaced and starvation is wielded as a weapon of war, we must speak plainly and act decisively. What we are witnessing playing out on our television screens is a genocide, and we have a duty to act.

Alliance has consistently and unequivocally condemned the terrorist attacks of Hamas on 7 October, which claimed the lives of over 1,200 Israelis and resulted in the capture of over 250 hostages. We have continued to call for their immediate and unconditional release. Let me also take this opportunity today to condemn the horrific terrorist attack that took place in Jerusalem yesterday. There can never be justification for attacks on innocent civilians, but nor can the vile actions of Hamas excuse the collective punishment of an entire civilian population, a population that has not had the opportunity to cast a vote for Hamas in almost 20 years.

To be clear, defeat of Hamas will not be achieved through famine and suffering, nor will the foundations for lasting peace or security be laid on the graves of thousands of innocent men, women and children in Gaza. All lives are equal, Palestinian and Israeli. There must be an immediate and permanent ceasefire and unrestricted flow of humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip. It is obscene and heartbreaking that, while children starve in Gaza, abundant food lies just miles away.

The Labour Government too must end their complicity. The strongly worded statements of condemnation must be matched with action through the full suspension of arms sales, the introduction of sanctions against Netanyahu's security cabinet and withdrawal from the UK-Israel free trade agreement. The UK rightly took steps against Russia following its illegal invasion of Ukraine and must take robust action now to defend international law in Gaza. Gaza must not become a graveyard for international law and human rights.

Alliance has also long supported the recognition of a Palestinian state, but that is more urgent than ever today. A two-state solution provides the only viable means by which Palestinians and Israelis can live side by side in peace and security. The Israeli Government, however, have rejected that position, instead seeking to expand illegal settlements in the West Bank, with the Israeli Finance Minister explicitly stating that it would:

Recognition must, therefore, not be wielded as a bargaining chip or a symbolic gesture, but granted irreversibly and without conditions to keep the very prospect of a two-state solution alive.

Whilst those of us in Northern Ireland cannot end the crisis alone, we can and must act with compassion and as part of a broader coalition to stand up for justice, human rights and international law. We have a rich history of providing humanitarian assistance and sanctuary to those in need. That is why I am pleased that the Executive have agreed to participate in the medical evacuations from the Gaza Strip of children who require specialist care. It is shameful, however, that some politicians in the Chamber railed against providing that support. I cannot begin to fathom how callous or cruel you have to be to turn away two children — two children — who have faced starvation and require specialist medical support.

We also must get assurances from the Finance Minister and the Economy Minister that no public money is being used in any way to support the supply of arms to countries where there is a prima facie case of genocide to answer. When we last debated the crisis in Gaza, scurrilous —.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mr Tennyson: I will indeed.

Mr Frew: Will the Member clarify that remark? Is he saying that any companies that produce weapons in Northern Ireland should not get government support or funding?

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

Mr Tennyson: I am not saying that. I am saying that the Government need to assure themselves that the weapons are not being supplied to any states that are involved in potentially genocidal actions. Ministers need to come to the Chamber and make that position clear.

When we last debated this crisis, scurrilous allegations of anti-Semitism were made towards those of us who expressed concern at the actions of the Israeli Government — a contribution that conflated the Jewish people with the Israeli Government, but also ignored the plurality of opinion in Israel, where brave activists and organisations have stood up against this genocide. Therefore, allow me to be clear now: I utterly reject anti-Semitism and all forms of racism in our community. I stand firmly with Northern Ireland's small Jewish, Muslim and Palestinian communities who face trauma and feel vulnerable at this time.

When the scale of suffering is so severe and the silence so deafening, it can be easy for us all to despair. One day, everyone will have been against this genocide. We have a duty to speak up for peace, justice and international law now before it is too late. Our constituents expect nothing less.

Mr O'Toole: We debated the appalling genocide and criminal actions of the Israeli state in Gaza just a few months ago. Since then, thousands of innocent Palestinians, including hundreds of children, have died. Let us put that into some context: more than the entire loss of life during our three-decade conflict has been lost in just a few months in a tiny strip of land about the size of the Ards peninsula.

When I hear people talk in the Chamber — I want us to approach the subject with seriousness, given the seriousness of what we are talking about — I sometimes wonder whether people quite appreciate the gravity of what we are living through when they say that we should, for example, "inject balance" into our remarks or, indeed, that what we say here does not matter. I sometimes wonder whether they think about themselves 10, 20 or 30 years hence, having had the opportunity to be elected representatives at a time when a genocide was happening. I wonder whether they and others will look back and reflect on their record when they had a platform in this Chamber, even if it was —.

Dr Aiken: Respectfully, will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: Respectfully, I will give way in one moment to the Member.

Mr O'Toole: I wonder whether they will look back and reflect on what they said and whether they used their words, their platform and their mandate to stand against an appalling, depraved genocide that was happening in our times — in our lives — and that was facilitated by states, including the UK, which has been a long-time ally of the state of Israel. I sometimes wonder whether people will look back then. I will give way to Dr Aiken.

Dr Aiken: Thank you very much indeed. My intervention is about the fact that one of the last things that David Lammy did before he stood down as Foreign Secretary was to identify the fact that the United Kingdom Government have concluded that Israel is not acting with intent and is therefore not conducting genocide. What is the Member's view on the British Government's current view that Israel is not conducting genocide? Indeed, other parties here are saying that Israel is conducting genocide when, in fact, there is no evidence whatsoever to show that.

Mr O'Toole: I am afraid —.

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

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

I say this with the greatest respect: Dr Aiken has come to the Chamber on multiple occasions and said the most disreputable things on the subject. I do not want to get into a back and forth with him, but I think that he will look back and reflect on some of the statements that he has made in here. I hope that he thinks about the wisdom of those remarks. As I said, I do not want to get into a back and forth, because the subject is too important.

To cover his point specifically, do I think that the UK Government are credible on the subject of Israel and genocide? Of course I do not. They have spoken out of both sides of their mouth. They have been mealy-mouthed. The current Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, said that Israel had the right to blockade food, water and aid from Gaza. The Prime Minister said that, so do I think that his former Foreign Secretary and his Government are credible on the issue of genocide? Obviously not, Dr Aiken.

On the recognition of Palestine as a state, that is another example of where Mr Lammy will be on the wrong side of history, because, a few months ago, he pathetically and shamefully said, with great aplomb and apparently expecting praise, that the UK would, with conditionality if Israel did not do certain things, recognise the state of Palestine, giving a genocidal state — members of whose Government have said that they effectively want to wipe out the Palestinian people — the final say over whether a Palestinian state is recognised.

All that I am saying today is that they should look back on the statements and read the words of Israeli Government Ministers. Read what they have said and then come back to the Chamber and repeat some of what you have said over the past while. I genuinely do not want to get into a back and forth across the Chamber. The most important thing is that we in the Chamber, even though we are on the island of Ireland, which is many miles away from Gaza, have a voice, and we have the ability to stand against an appalling genocide. Everybody has a voice, be it through a social media account or the ability to stand and participate in a protest, as people have done on numerous occasions on this island, including yesterday when Mothers Against Genocide stood outside the front of this Building. People should use their voice and stand against the appalling actions of the Israeli state.

On 22 August, the UN World Food Programme, the World Health Organization and others said that half a million people were experiencing famine in Gaza. Half a million people, which is a quarter of the population, in a space the size of the Ards peninsula were experiencing famine. Four days later, Israel bombed a hospital. Innocent people were obviously killed, because that is what happens when you bomb hospitals. Then, when people went to rescue those who were trapped and dying under the rubble, Israel bombed the hospital again. A grotesque, genocidal war is being visited upon innocent people in Gaza. I do not minimise and have never minimised what happened on 7 October. The response, however, from the state of Israel has been indescribably disproportionate and immoral. I do not know when it is going to end, because I fear that the world order is collapsing, with a grotesque lawbreaker in the White House who seems happy to allow genocide to happen. That is why it is so important that those of us who have a voice use it.

We will, of course, support today's motion. I welcome the fact that the matter has been brought back to the Chamber, and it should continue to be brought back to this Chamber and every Chamber in every democracy around the world that cares about decency, humanity and human rights. We support the motion.

Mr Sheehan: Le 23 mhí anuas, tá muid ag amharc ar chinedhíothú agus é á chraoladh beo ag a íospartaigh féin. Chonaic gach duine againn sa Seomra na híomhánna uafásacha de choirp chráite, mhaslaithe, coirp páistí agus leanaí nuabheirthe san áireamh, chonaic muid sin ar an teilifís s’againn nó ar na meáin shóisialta ag teacht ó Gaza. Déanann Palaistínigh in Gaza taifeadadh ar an bheatha dhosheasta acu gach aon lá — an bás, an t-ocras agus an léirscrios — rinneadh an tuairisciú sin a mhaolú san Iarthar, nó tá an tIarthar ciontach chomh maith i gcoireanna Iosrael. Ach níl a dhath ar bith normálta faoin rud atá ar siúl; níl a dhath normálta faoin bhás agus an léirscrios a bheith ina gcuid den ghnáthshaol. Tá na híomhánna scanrúla de pháistí a mharaigh fórsaí Iosrael as eadán a chéile, cibé acu trí ionsaithe aeir nó talún, tá sin ar an rud is scanrúla ar fad. Is smál ar an chine daonna é a bhfuil ar siúl in Gaza.

Dar le hOifig na Náisiún Aontaithe um Chomhordú Gnóthaí Daonnúla go bhfuil líon oifigiúil na mbásanna ar taifead anois níos airde ná 63,000 duine. Is páistí iad 29% den líon iomlán — sin 18,400 páiste. Níl ciall do náire ag Benjamin Netanyahu ná ag a chomhchiontóirí agus iad ag marú mná agus páistí neamhchiontacha. Níl aon fhadhb acu iriseoirí a mharú; níl aon fhadhb acu dochtúirí ná oibrithe cabhrach daonnúla a mharú ach oiread agus iad ag iarraidh cuidiú leis na híospartaigh den chinedhíothú seo. Sna 24 an chloig seo caite, tá Benjamin Netanyahu i ndiaidh ionradh talún a dhéanamh i gCathair Gaza, á rá le saoránaigh na cathrach "a bheith ar shiúl anois". Cá rachaidh siad? Tá siad sáinnithe. Tá normalú á dhéanamh ar an ghlanadh eitneach os ár gcomhair.

Dé Sathairn 6 Meán Fómhair, chuaigh baill de chuid Shinn Féin i gcomhar leis na milliúin gníomhaithe ar fud an domhain le Lá Domhanda Gníomhaíochta do Gaza a cheiliúradh. Rinne Comhghuaillíocht Dhomhanda na Palaistíne, a bunaíodh le déanaí, rinne sin comhordú ar lá domhanda gníomhaíochta, agus é mar aidhm aici comhghuaillíocht idirnáisiúnta leathan a thógáil le féinchinntiúchán na Palaistíne a chosaint. Tá sé ríthábhachtach go seasfaimid le chéile in aghaidh chinedheighilt, fhorghabháil agus chinedhíothú Iosrael, agus go dtacóimid le hiarrachtaí idirnáisiúnta comhordaithe. Tá na duisíní long ag taisteal trasna na Meánmhara faoi láthair leis an bhac mhídhleathach ar Gaza a bhriseadh. Meastar gurb é global Sumud flotilla an cabhlach sibhialta comhordaithe is mó riamh.

Cáinim go láidir an t-ionsaí a rinneadh aréir ar long de chuid an chabhlaigh a bhí sa Túinéis. Léiríonn an t-ionsaí sin nach bhfuil a dhath trom ná te ag Iosrael ná ag lucht a pháirte. Cuirim in iúl mo dhlúthpháirtíocht do na céadta gníomhaithe atá ag glacadh páirt sa chablach. Má sheasaimid i leataobh agus gan a dhath a dhéanamh is ionann sin agus an bua a ligean leis an olc. Níl aon pháirt rómhór ná róbheag — tá páirt againn go léir le himirt le deireadh a chur le dúbhearta Iosrael in aghaidh na daonnachta. Is bagairt bhradach í Iosrael atá ag sárú ar an dlí idirnáisiúnta agus ar chearta an duine. Baghcat, dí-infheistíocht agus smachtbhannaí an t-aon dóigh amháin a stopfar coireanna Iosrael. Nuair a chuirfear stop le feachtas marfach Iosrael agus nuair a thabharfar na daoine atá ciontach os comhair na cúirte sa Háig, beidh síocháin, dínit agus dóchas ann do mhuintir na Palaistíne.

Mr Kingston: I will comment first on the political process. We have a motion on Gaza tabled by Sinn Féin in the Northern Ireland Assembly, when we have virtually no influence over UK foreign policy, which is a reserved matter for Westminster. The irony, of course, is that Sinn Féin has the ability to influence, debate and vote on such matters in Parliament at Westminster, but it chooses to boycott that elected Parliament. Today's debate only exposes its failure to turn up and represent people where it would count.

I turn to the subject matter. Absolutely, the situation in Gaza is dire. We deplore the loss and suffering of all innocent life. Next month marks the second anniversary of the murderous onslaught by Hamas on 7 October 2023, when it carried out murder, rape and kidnapping, killing around 1,200 people and taking another 250 Israelis hostage. Hamas continues to ruthlessly hold hostages, starving them to death, and it continues its terrorist attacks and rocket assaults on Israel. This summer saw the retrieval of two more dead Israeli hostages. There are 48 still being held by Hamas, which indicates the unwillingness of Hamas to bring the war to an end.

If we want peace, we must ensure that Hamas is ousted from Gaza. In Gaza, public criticism of Hamas carries significant risks. In March this year, 22-year-old Oday al-Rubai was abducted and tortured to death by armed gunmen after taking part in anti-Hamas protests in Gaza city. There are reports that others have been beaten, shot or killed for publicly opposing Hamas. Israel is clearly determined to end the rule of Hamas and eliminate its leadership.

On the claims of genocide, as has already been referenced, a letter written last week by the then Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, confirmed that the UK Government do not believe that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. He wrote:

Writing to Sarah Champion, chairwoman of Parliament’s International Development Committee, Lammy stated:

It is imperative that there is swift action and lasting solutions to this hugely concerning situation. As a party, we want to see a stark increase in the amount of aid reaching Gaza. We support the recent efforts made by all contributing parties, including airdrops, and call for those efforts to be redoubled. In addition, a repeat of previous temporary pauses in the conflict is needed to see vital aid making its way into Gaza. That would allow humanitarian corridors to open. DUP parliamentarians will continue to support any initiatives and efforts that see an increase of aid into Gaza. Whilst doing so, we continue to uphold Israel's right to defend itself and its internal security against the threats posed by the terrorist organisation, Hamas. Those ought not to be mutually exclusive aims. Hamas is a deadly gang of murderers, whose game is to swing international opinion in its favour and against the victims of its terror.

The disturbing images from Gaza lead us all to the conclusion that the war must end. However, we must remember that it started because terrorists raped, burned and murdered people and took people captive. They still hold hostages today. That was done deliberately at a time when many Arab nations were moving to normalise their relations with the state of Israel. The time has now approached for redoubling of the efforts to see a permanent and sustainable ceasefire —

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

Mr Kingston: — that, in turn, will result in an end to the war.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you; that is much appreciated.

Mr Donnelly: The ongoing slaughter in Gaza is the number-one issue that I receive correspondence about by a huge distance. I get letters, phone calls, emails and visits to the office. People are absolutely appalled by what is going on. However, it is not about us, although the whataboutery on the issue is, sadly, predictable. Your opinion on genocide does not impact on your national identity. If I speak out against violence, starvation and genocide and your first thought is to ask whether I condemn Hamas, that exposes your ability to separate atrocities on the basis of who commits them, not mine.

In condemning violence, starvation and genocide, Hamas is included unequivocally and without question. When did the condemnation of genocide and the condemnation of terrorism become mutually exclusive? At what point did calling out mass starvation, mass murder and the erasure of an entire group of people mean that you support terrorism? I could try to explain the lack of basic human empathy behind that narrative. I can even talk about the lack of ability to think critically beyond bias that is so deeply engrained that it blinds reason, but that is exactly the point. Those who commit genocide, support genocide or deny genocide while it is unquestionably unfolding in front of the world are not people who listen to reason.

Language is a powerful tool. It shapes how we see the world and how we communicate our view of the world to others. When we tell a story, the language that we use moulds how others view our experiences. Language can be manipulated to suit an agenda of hiding true actions and motives behind an exploitative narrative.

Whether it is terrorism or state violence constituting a war crime, the words are different but the actions and the outcomes are the same, and the condemnation should be the same. It is about the pain and suffering of innocent people.

A BBC report confirms that Israel has replaced the UN's food system with the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. Instead of 400 community sites, there are now just four, all in heavily militarised zones. Palestinians must walk long distances under fire to reach them. The report states that the Palestinians face a choice "between starvation and death" — the literal definition of a deathtrap.

I attended an event last year — other Members who are present were also there — at which Professor Nick Maynard, who is a consultant gastrointestinal surgeon based in the University of Oxford in England has been visiting and working in Gaza since 2010, described having to do surgery on patients, often children, without dependable electricity, light or even analgesia. I cannot imagine the pain that those patients suffer or the impact on the brave medical professionals who risk their lives to do everything that they can to save lives in Gaza.

Professor Maynard describes parts of Gaza as "post-apocalyptic", with hospitals being bombed and medics and journalists routinely killed. Professor Maynard and others have been bearing witness and sharing their testimony at the Gaza tribunal in Westminster. In doing so, Professor Maynard highlighted a pattern of:

and he stated that it was his opinion that there is:

Every day, we see horrendous pictures on TV and social media of the ongoing atrocities against innocent civilians in Gaza. It has become normalised. Since May, the UN has recorded, at least 994 Palestinians have been killed near those food sites, among the 1,760 killed trying to get aid. Most were shot by Israeli troops, according to eyewitnesses and medics, although Israel denies that. Under that system, starvation in Gaza has only deepened.

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), UNICEF, the World Food Programme and the World Health Organization have all highlighted atrocities of starvation in Gaza, and they are clear that the famine must be stopped at all costs. The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), which is the UN's system for measuring hunger, has confirmed that famine is now a reality. That means that the most extreme level has been reached. To reach that point, three things must all be true: extreme food deprivation; acute malnutrition; and deaths caused by starvation.

The UN's human rights chief, Volker Türk, said it plainly:

The BBC has reported that the Israeli army body, Coordinator of the Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT), has dismissed the IPC's findings as:

Israel's foreign ministry has called it a:

Those claims do not stand up. Even the US Government, Israel's closest ally, have produced internal reports finding no evidence of the systemic diversion of aid by Hamas. Another close ally, the former Foreign Secretary and the current Deputy Prime Minister, David Lammy, said:

and that it is "a moral outrage."

To recognise those crimes is not to take a side in politics —

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

Mr Donnelly: — it is to take the side of humanity.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you; that is much appreciated.

Ms Bunting: I will not reiterate my party's position on genocide and famine, as colleagues have done so. I will address other points.

I draw Members' attention to some posts. One from 11 hours ago stated:

Another post stated:

A post from 18 hours ago:

Two days ago, a post stated:

Those posts are from the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), which, in its bio, states that it is:

Sinn Féin claims that it is discredited — discredited because it dispels the lies, perhaps? The thing about Hamas, Sinn Féin and their chums in the IRA and the radical left is that they will never let the facts get in the way of propaganda. "Amir" was reportedly killed by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) in May, but, a few days ago, was found alive and hiding with his mother.

Four weeks ago, 900 trucks of aid were sent in. Around 400 to 500 trucks are deposited per week. The truth is that the UN would not pick it up, so it was being left to rot. It took Israel to bring journalists to Gaza to see the piles of rotting food to embarrass the UN into doing its job, but that does not fit the narrative. Eighty thousand babies have been born in Gaza since October 7. They do not say that, because it does not fit the narrative. A couple of days ago, Sky News Arabia reported on a new Nutella cafe opening in Gaza, but that does not fit the narrative either.

The call to slaughter Jews has been played seven times on Palestinian Authority TV in the past year. That is not in the motion. Yesterday, seven Jews were killed in a terrorist attack on a bus in Jerusalem. An eyewitness said that the driver got off, took a call, returned for his belongings and fled, and then the terrorists boarded and opened fire. There is no mention of that, because that does not fit the narrative. In here, the Israelis have to be the bad guys.

Let us get to the reality. Another tweet, three days ago, stated:

It went on to thank a US representative for supporting its mission:

The truth is that Hamas, much like the IRA, which, in previous years, threatened and punished its own to stop them going to the police, is threatening and beating innocent Palestinians to stop them going to the food centres. Like the IRA, Hamas is fine with people starving to death and using them as a propaganda tool. The truth is that many Palestinians are afraid. They are being coerced and controlled not by Israel but by Hamas fighters — none of them appear to be affected by famine, by the way — who are threatening them with violence if they go to the food distribution centres to feed their families.

The message portrayed in the motion reflects only half of the picture, and, as was the case in the previous Gaza debate, wilfully ignores the complex reality. Certainly, it is horrifying to see anybody starving, particularly children, and to look at appalling images of emaciation and suffering, regardless of whether it is Gazan children or Hamas hostages still being held in tunnels: on that we can agree.

We will support the UUP amendment. There are elements of it that cause me concern and with which I am not totally on board, but it is infinitely preferable to the propaganda and disinformation coming form the Benches opposite. It goes without saying that we will not buy what Sinn Féin is selling.

Mr Dickson: Once again, I stand with Members to discuss the horrific war crimes being perpetrated in Gaza. In June, I said in the Chamber that, due to the withholding of food and aid, half a million people — a quarter of Palestinians in Gaza — were at risk of starvation and that Gaza was on the brink of famine. Shamefully, famine was confirmed in Gaza on 22 August, with the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification report stating that famine was on track to spread to the rest of Gaza, where 640,000 people could be starving within six weeks if more aid is not allowed in. That is, by any measure, a humanitarian crisis.

I join fellow speakers who call for, first, an immediate ceasefire. The war is causing untold suffering. If more aid is not allowed into Gaza and a ceasefire is not called, it runs the risk of leading another cycle of intergenerational fear, hatred and violence that will make everyone in the region more unsafe and more unstable — something that we know about all too well in this small part of the world.

I stand here distressed because we are once again discussing horrors that cannot be imagined. However, do not listen to my words; listen to the words gathered and recorded by B’Tselem, a well-respected humanitarian human rights organisation, an NGO that collects unbiased reports across Israel and in Gaza:

According to the report, tens of thousands of wounded individuals and amputees remain without adequate care. Many are discharged into horrifically impossible conditions, living in tents and rags, destroyed buildings or makeshift shelters. Yet the United Kingdom Government and, shamefully, people in this Chamber equivocate about offering First World medical care to a small number of children who could be evacuated here for that care.

Listen on. A parent says:

If you were a mother today in Gaza, not only can you not feed your children but you do not even have enough milk in your breast to feed your babies. Those are horrific and dreadful situations, and we, as politicians in the First World, have a real and serious duty to tell our national Government in London that they need to take action — action that they should have taken a long time ago — to end the genocide, the starvation and the humanitarian horror.

Ms McLaughlin: I thank the proposers of the motion. Words cannot capture the depth of the humanitarian disaster in Gaza, so, instead, let us use facts: food is running out; those who search for it are being shot; families are dying for lack of food; hospitals are receiving the dead daily; and medical workers hear unbearable stories from the injured day after day. Those are not my words; they are the words of the UN humanitarian chief, Tom Fletcher, addressing the Security Council just last month. The UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, has called the famine a "man-made disaster". Health workers in Gaza describe skeletal patients, including children too weak to even stand. The UN-backed Integrated Food Security Phase Classification has now confirmed famine conditions in Gaza City. Why would it lie, and what is Israel trying to achieve by wiping out an entire people? We must never forget the horror of 7 October, nor cease to demand the release of all hostages, but innocent men, women and children cannot be made to pay for the crimes of Hamas. Palestinian people are not Hamas.

Let us be clear: what is happening in Gaza and the West Bank is genocide. Israel no longer even attempts to justify its bombing of hospitals, schools or homes. Its leaders are explicit. Former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant declared:

Just months ago, Ben Gvir argued that victory required the complete cessation of humanitarian aid and the total occupation of the Strip. Those are not my claims; they are Israel's own words, and yet the international community has largely looked away. Europe, in particular, has failed. Britain, France and Germany have been slow to react and act. Keir Starmer, who once prided himself on upholding international law, has failed to hold Israel accountable for the laws that are broken daily. Contrast that with the decisive sanctions imposed on Russia after Ukraine was invaded. The double standards are undeniable.

Some institutions are showing leadership. Last week, Norway's sovereign wealth fund, which is the largest in the world, divested its $2 billion stake from Caterpillar because its equipment is being used to demolish Palestinian homes. It also divested from four Israeli banks that finance illegal settlements. That is historic; it is the first time that the fund has exited a non-Israeli company explicitly because of violations in the occupied territories.

I joined a meeting with Mr Sharhabel al-Zaeem, the Justice Minister of Palestine, last week. He described the devastation that his people face but also their strength and dignity. He said something that struck me emotionally and deeply. He said that the Irish people have a special place in the hearts of the Palestinians. He wanted me to pass on his gratitude and greetings to the people here in this place who raise their voices for the Palestinian people. It is important that we do such a thing. That solidarity matters.

In July, I visited Jordan and met politicians and civic leaders there who are working at the heart of the crisis. Their message was one of frustration with Europe and the US, because they have failed to engage meaningfully on humanitarian relief and political solutions. They warned that, if Gaza is destroyed and its population displaced, the consequences will be profound across the region. Those are the realities that we must face, however uncomfortable they may be.

We must also reject attempts to commodify a people's homeland. The so-called Trump Gaza riviera plan, which proposed to turn Gaza into a development project for foreign investors, was an insult to human dignity. Gaza is not for sale. A home is not for sale. Palestine is not for sale. It belongs to its people. Today, innocent men, women and children are starving. They cannot wait for tomorrow.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Sinéad. Sorry.

Mr Gaston: I oppose the motion and support the Ulster Unionists' amendment. The problem with the motion is obvious. It makes no mention of the role of Hamas, a proscribed terrorist organisation, in the crisis. Instead, it lays the blame — every ounce of blame — at the door of the world's only Jewish state, and that in itself tells its own story.

Of course, this is a motion that stands in the name of that great champion of human rights, none other than the cash-and-carry bomber, Mr Sheehan. I wonder whether Mr Kearney, who moved the motion —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston, take your seat. The debate is about Gaza. I know that you can read the words of the motion. I am trying to give people an opportunity to expand on it and provide context, but you are already well outside doing that. I ask you respectfully to return to the subject of the motion. If not, I will ask you to take your seat, and I will move on to the next Member. Thank you.

Mr Gaston: I take your guidance, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

The omission of Hamas from the motion is perhaps not all that surprising. For the benefit of Sinn Féin, let us remember what led to this conflict. Two years ago next month, Hamas carried out the largest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust, murdering men, women and children and dragging hostages into Gaza. In the text of the motion, that horror is tagged on as an afterthought at the very end. Of course we are all moved by the scenes of suffering that fill our screens, but it is wrong, morally and factually, to pretend that Israel is deliberately starving the people of Gaza. Since the war began, Israel has facilitated the delivery of millions of tons of food, medicine and fuel into Gaza. That is not the behaviour of a state that is using starvation as a weapon.

What has happened to much of that aid? Contrary to what the BBC tells us, it is being looted by Hamas, just like it did with the foreign aid that was sent to the country in recent years. As the amendment rightly notes, Hamas is not only the cause of the war but a major cause of the humanitarian crisis. Aid convoys have been hijacked, warehouses have been emptied and fuel and food have been diverted into the hands of terrorists. Let me give two examples to back that up. Only last month, the IDF wiped out a group of armed men in Gaza who were posing as employees of World Central Kitchen. That charity confirmed that those men had nothing to do with its operation. They were terrorists who were trying to exploit humanitarian operations. In January, during a humanitarian ceasefire, no fewer than 50 fuel trucks intended for civilians were seized by Hamas. That fuel never reached the hospitals or the homes that it was intended to reach and instead went straight to the Hamas war machine.

Here is the truth that the motion ignores: if the hostages were to be released tomorrow, the war would end tomorrow. If Hamas were to stop stealing aid today, the famine would end tomorrow. The motion is not about protecting human rights but about demonising Israel while excusing terrorists. By contrast, the amendment recognises the suffering of the people in Gaza while also recognising the reality of Hamas's crimes. That is why I reject the motion and support the amendment.

To get back to Mr Kearney, it would be interesting to know what he thinks the UN position is on bombing cash and carrys. I am very interested to know that, Mr Kearney, because you were very keen to talk about the UN position when opening the debate.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston, take your seat. Thank you.

Mr Carroll: I am in favour of the motion, and I thank the Members opposite for tabling it. Unfortunately, we are approaching two years of Israel committing genocide, despite people trying to say otherwise. It is a genocide in living colour, recorded and documented across social media and some mainstream outlets. You would have thought that, had you asked people 10, 50 or 80 years ago whether a genocide would be allowed to be committed in public view for everyone across the world to see, they would have said no and denied it. Unfortunately, our sick political and economic system allows it to be so.

Despite the attempts to repeat lies when the violence and brutality started, which was attempted by some in this debate as well, most people across the world know what is right and wrong. They know who the aggressor is. It is as clear as day that it is Israel and that it always has been. I commend all the activists who came outside the Building in their droves yesterday to keep the fight going for Palestine. I commend Mothers Against Genocide for organising yesterday's event and all the groups that have not let up in the past two years but have kept standing up for Palestine.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Member for giving way. People are appalled by the wanton death, destruction and starvation being exacted against the innocent people of Gaza. They ask, "What can we do? What can we say?". The answer is that we must say and do something. The Member mentioned Mothers Against Genocide. Yesterday's protest was the most powerfully poignant one that I have seen in my nearly 10 years as an MLA.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr McNulty, will you come to your point? Interventions are meant to be short.

Mr McNulty: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. Does the Member agree that it is obscene for some of the Members on the Benches opposite to stand here and deny the genocide and the wanton destruction —?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr McNulty, take your seat, thank you. Gerry, go ahead.

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. Do I get an extra minute?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Absolutely. [Laughter.]

Mr Carroll: Good, thank you. Just checking.

I agree that the protest yesterday was poignant and that we can do more. I will come on to that, but I thank the Member for his intervention.

The Mothers Against Genocide activists handed a letter to some politicians, including the Member opposite and others. I will mention some of the demands that they call for in their letter. They advocate a ceasefire and recognition of the independent state of Palestine. They recognise the need for an "ethical procurement policy", which would include ending rate relief for companies that are complicit in apartheid and genocide, and the need to let aid in. They had other demands as well, and I support all the demands that are outlined in the letter. I urge other parties to support them too.

If you think about it, you see it is completely disgusting that Israel still denies access to food in Gaza, when truckloads are waiting to get in. The fact that Israel — nobody else — has killed at least 2,000 people in Gaza when they were queuing for food is completely barbaric. Imagine what the British Government would do if any other state in the Middle East or the world did that. They would sharpen their knives, turn on the tanks and get ready for war, but, because it is Israel, it is business as usual, and the military and political support continues to flow in, without even thinking twice about it.

In recent weeks, 50 high-rise blocks of flats have been destroyed by Israel. Those 50 blocks of flats were the homes of Palestinians. When buildings are blown up in Kyiv and elsewhere in Ukraine, we, rightly, hear about it on the news, but, when it is Palestinian homes, we rarely hear about it, because Palestinians have been dehumanised so much for so long. Imagine 50 Divis towers, 50 New Lodge blocks of flats or 50 buildings like Belfast City Hospital being wiped out and destroyed. That is what the Israeli occupation army does. It orders people to leave, then it blows them and their homes to smithereens. We are told that it has the most sophisticated weaponry in the world, but it is used to blow people to bits.

While the British, American and most Western Governments continue to support that barbarism, people are taking matters into their own hands. I commend everyone who is, bravely, on the Global Sumud Flotilla, taking huge personal risks to go out on the open sea to try to break the siege of Gaza. It is the biggest humanitarian aid convoy ever to depart for Palestine. It consists of people such as Greta Thunberg, other activists from across the world, some TDs, including my party colleague Paul Murphy, and, I think, some members of Sinn Féin. Dlúthpháirtíocht le gach duine ar na báid.

Disgracefully, one was attacked last night by an Israeli drone, despite attempts to say otherwise in this debate. Instead of clamping down on activist groups, such as Palestine Action, which should never have been marked as a proscribed terrorist organisation in the first place, the British Government should be ensuring that aid gets in to the millions of Palestinians and that the Sumud flotilla is left untouched.

The motion is very important. I hope that it is passed, and I will be voting for it. However, it has some obvious omissions that need to be addressed. There is growing frustration in the Palestine solidarity movement that Ministers and the Executive are refusing to do all that they can to exert maximum pressure on the British Government and, by extension, Israel. Motions are important — absolutely — but action is what makes the difference. The question is this: why have the First Minister and deputy First Minister not done anything about the fact that Belfast International Airport is facilitating the US war machine and its flights? Why is the Economy Minister allowing funding from Invest NI —?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Gerry, will you take your seat for a minute?

Mr Carroll: Sure.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: It is a point of order. As you know, there is currently a court case involving the Department for the Economy. It is actually sub judice. Make your points about the substance of the motion. To be fair, I put the same criticism to Mr Gaston, albeit on a different issue. I encourage you to finish your remarks on the subject of the motion.

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. How long are Palestinians expected to wait for a departmental internal review to be completed? Recently, the Scottish Government decided to stop investing in companies that are connected to Israel and are involved in the war industry. We should do the same here at speed. I urge all Ministers, especially Sinn Féin Ministers, to make that happen. I support the motion.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Gerry. I call Steve Aiken to make the winding-up speech on the amendment. Steve, you have five minutes.

Dr Aiken: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. If possible, I would like to put some reason into the debate. Regrettably, the debate so far has just reinforced things that we have all said time and time again. We have had frequent mentions — on these Benches, we consider them to be inaccurate — of genocide, famine, apartheid, war crimes and the horrors of Israel. Thankfully, we have also heard from Members on these Benches about the conflicts in Yemen, Somalia, Darfur, Sudan, Syria and elsewhere. We should also hear about the Yazidis and what is happening against the Druze. Indeed, what is probably missing from both sides in the Chamber is a sense of balance about what is really happening. Quite frankly, none of us really knows what is happening on the ground.

What I would like to talk about, though, in asking Members to support my party's amendment, is an actual answer that would bring that horrid conflict to a swift conclusion and end the war right now: the release of the 48 innocent hostages. Please remember the following names in your thoughts. For those who pray, please remember them in your prayers. They are Ariel Cunio, Alon Ohel, Eitan Horn, Avinatan Or, Elkana Bohbot, Evyatar David, Bipin Joshi, Ziv Berman, Gali Berman, David Cunio, Eitan Mor, Maxim Herkin, Omri Miran, Bar Abraham Kupershtein, Guy Gilboa-Dalal, Nimrod Cohen, Matan Zangauker, Tamir Nimrodi, Matan Angrest, Segev Kalfon, Rom Braslavski, Yosef-Haim Ohana, Itay Chen, Eliyahu Margalit, Eitan Levi, Sahar Baruch, Joshua Luito Mollel, Tal Haimi, Arie Zalmanowicz, Ran Gvili, Dror Or, Tamir Adar, Ronen Engel, Inbar Hayman, Guy Iluz, Asaf Hamami, Lior Rudaeff, Muhammad Al-Atarash, Meny Godard, Omer Neutra, Yossi Sharabi, Daniel Oz, Daniel Perez, Uriel Baruch, Sontia Ok’Krasari, Sontisek Rintalk, Amiram Cooper and Hadar Goldin. For those who are unaware, Amiram Cooper is 85 years old.

Every day, my mind is haunted by the picture of the Bibas family and the horror of the fate of Ariel and Kfir, the children who were strangled by Palestinian terrorists — bear in mind that Kfir was only nine months old when he was strangled — and the fate of their mother, Shiri Bibas. How can anybody with any degree of humanity not understand those horrors and call for the immediate release of the hostages?

Please, if you are right-minded, join us in supporting our amendment.

We are approaching some of the key points in the Jewish religious calendar: Rosh Hashana at the end of this month, then Yom Kippur. When Yom Kippur occurs this year, it will be three years since those horrors were inflicted on 7 October. We, as a Chamber, should reflect on that, which is why I ask you to support our amendment.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Emma Sheerin to make a winding-up speech on the substantive motion. Emma, you have 10 minutes.

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

Some Members who are sitting across the House today appear to be bored by the fact that Sinn Féin is still talking about this matter. We cannot believe that it is still happening. That is why we are still talking about it, and, just to be clear, we will continue to talk about it until it stops. On top of that, we again hear calls for balance. I reiterate this: when babies are starving to death, there is no balance, there is no place for balance and we cannot call for balance.

It feels futile to stand here and talk about this. It feels as though nothing has changed since the previous time that we discussed it in the Chamber, but, of course, things have changed. It has got worse. What we have seen over the past 23 months has been mischaracterised by many as a war. It is not a war. It is a one-sided attack by an apartheid state. It is an escalation of a decades-long attempt to completely obliterate an entire population of people. It is a man-made famine, live-streamed on our phones. It is about the first group in history to experience their genocide being broadcast in real time and to still not be believed. We, on these Benches, believe the Palestinian people, and we stand with them.

How much more suffering do you need to see before you will believe them and stand up against it? Where is your humanity? I do not profess to be a better Christian than anyone else in the House, but I know right from wrong. This is the current death toll in Gaza: 64,522 people. Of those people, 393 starved to death, and 140 of those were children. We have almost moved past talking about the bombing of hospitals, because there are nearly no hospitals left in the Gaza Strip.

This is upsetting, and I cannot understand how anybody would not be upset by it.

I can accept that there are political viewpoints that you might not comprehend but that you have to recognise as being valid if they do no harm, but the racist rhetoric of the Israeli state does harm. It has done immeasurable harm. It has dehumanised an entire race of people, which has allowed the world to facilitate their genocide.

People say that the definition of insanity is doing same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. I do not know whether, in continuing to present this argument and ask for humility and humanity in response, it is we who are insane or those who blindly follow the coloniser regardless of the outcome, but somebody is wrong.

"Nuance" is not a term that I typically associate with unionism in the North of Ireland, but, today, I have yet again heard people attempting to apply nuance to the starving of men, women, children and babies. Let me be really clear: there is no nuance to the forced starvation of babies. There is no context, lecturing or posturing that you can apply to that to make it right. If you are starving a baby, you are the one in the wrong: it is that simple.

The context, for those who want to hear it, is this: 77 years of occupation. A people were literally forcibly removed from their homes. They left their houses and watched those same houses being given to someone else. Since that time, they have been detained on a strip of land the size of County Louth. Where they go or what they do is dictated by their identity. They have no freedom of movement, no reliable electricity source and no clean running water. Their schools are provided by charities. That is the reality.

The last time that we had this debate in the Chamber, in June 2025, Members on the opposite Benches talked about their tours of Israel and the hospitality that they received. Well, it is well for ye. I tried to go to Palestine in 2014 but the Israelis were bombing them from the sky then too, and we could not get in. Friends of mine — Killian Feehan, who is now an SDLP councillor, and Dáire Hughes, the Sinn Féin MP for Newry and Armagh — have both been previously and told me the stories of what they witnessed there. They described the brutal Israeli occupation that kept people hemmed in. We all know that that did not start on 7 October 2023.

There is a duty on us to call this out for what it is and to stand against it. Members have reflected on the fact that the protest outside this Building yesterday called for action. The protestors asked us to bring motions to this Chamber. History will judge us all. If your heart and your conscience are not screaming at you now, and if your moral compass is not telling you right from wrong, think about how you will be reflected in history. Let that guide you. What we are doing here is not much, but it is all that we can do. We will continue to do that until the Palestinian people have peace and justice.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is agreement — order — that we can dispense with the three minutes and move straight to a Division.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members, please take your ease before we move to the next item of business.

Mr O'Toole: I beg to move

Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other speakers will have five minutes.

Mr O'Toole: We are here for a very short time, both on this earth, obviously, and in elected politics. Our time in politics — whoever we are — is brief, but Lough Neagh has been around since time immemorial. We have, therefore, been given the profound responsibility of being the custodians of our most precious natural resource. In this jurisdiction, our most precious natural resource — the source of 40% of our drinking water, Ireland's largest lake, the UK's largest lake, one of Western Europe's largest lakes and a treasure — is Lough Neagh, and it is dying. That is not hyperbole, and it is not exaggeration. It is an observable fact.

This summer, we saw the return of blue-green algae, a cyanobacteria that has blossomed all over the lough. There are multiple reasons for the blue-green algae, including the presence of zebra mussels, which clarify the water; the intensification of heat due to climate change; and a failure to invest in our waste water infrastructure, which means that we are, effectively, pouring hundreds of thousand of tons of effluent into the lough and other waterways. The single biggest driver, however, of the pollution and degradation of our greatest natural resource is environmental run-off. In saying those words, I have to be absolutely clear that I am not attacking farmers or our agricultural sector, which is also precious and something that we treasure and rely on for our food security, our prosperity and our rural communities. Our farmers are a treasure, they are precious and our party takes their protection seriously, but we have to be honest about the specific driver of pollution in Lough Neagh. The majority of it is being driven by agricultural run-off, with the other additions that I have mentioned.

Before the summer, a motion was brought to the Assembly to abandon something called the nutrients action programme (NAP). The nutrients action programme is core to, and is possibly the most fundamental part of, the Lough Neagh action plan. That plan is designed for the long term because restoring our greatest natural resource, Lough Neagh, and undoing some of the damage that has been done to it over generations, will take a long time. It is about starting to restore that precious natural resource over which we have custodianship.

It is understandable that farmers and those in that sector have questions about how the programme is applied. It is their livelihoods and their communities that will be affected, and they need to be consulted. They were being consulted, but a motion was brought to the Assembly to abandon the consultation before the Minister who is responsible for the environment had even completed it. The programme is clearly the single most important action in the Lough Neagh action plan. All the parties in the Executive, bar the Alliance Party, the Minister's party, supported the motion. I am often accused in the Chamber of scoring points and being political. I do both those things because that is my job. It is also my job to try to find solutions and to be constructive and to offer people a way forward from bad decisions. The decision to support the abandonment of the nutrients action programme while saying that we support the restoration of Lough Neagh was a grave error. Often, when we make errors in politics here, we have to wait years or decades for the error of those ways to be shown. We did not in this instance; we had to wait weeks — weeks — to see the algae bloom at Lough Neagh again. It is like a scene from sci-fi. Earlier, Mr Bradley, a Member for East Derry, mentioned the green water flowing — I think that he was talking about the lower Bann — up towards the north coast. It is happening before our eyes now. It will take years, if not decades, to fix. If we reverse at the very first hurdle and the very first moment of starting to deal with the nutrient overload, which is the major, predominant driver of the degradation of Lough Neagh, what good are we? What good would we be as an official Opposition if we did not take that responsibility seriously?

It is important that we talk about accountability. I welcome the fact that the First Minister is here. As a constituency MLA, she has engaged consistently on and talked about the subject. I want her and her party to provide leadership, because the First Minister has said consistently that she wants to deal with the pollution at Lough Neagh and to restore the lough to full health. I welcome those words; I have always welcomed those words and intentions. However, we have a problem with our politics here in the North, which is the junction between words and the actions that follow. You cannot promise to deal with Lough Neagh and the crisis that we have there, which is the degradation of the source of 40% of our drinking water and one of Western Europe's largest lakes, and then, at the very first opportunity, vote to abandon the necessary action. Politics is about leadership. It is about standing up, occasionally making difficult decisions and communicating trade-offs. It is about saying to people that, in order to achieve something, which is the protection of that lake, we need to take this step. In saying that, it is also the case that we need to bring people with us.

The Lough Neagh action plan, which we would like to have gone further in other areas, was clear that education, support and innovation will also be necessary. I welcome the fact that the Minister is here today. I want to hear from the Minister about what else is being done to support our agri-food businesses and our farmers in making that journey. This may not be his responsibility, which is why I would also like to hear from the Executive about what the Minister for Infrastructure and the Executive more broadly are doing about the crisis in Northern Ireland Water, because that is also a significant, but not the main, driver of the crisis in Lough Neagh. We simply are not investing enough in our waste water infrastructure. When I repeatedly ask the now Finance Minister, who was an Infrastructure Minister, what the plan is to invest in NI Water, he brushes me off. He talks about water charges. I do not want water charges — that is not our policy — but I want something. I want some form of investment. If that involves borrowing, by all means, let us hear it. Let us hear the plan. I have not heard the plan. The only thing that we have heard so far is words, and then, at the very first opportunity, people walk away from the core part of the Lough Neagh action plan.

If we believe in politics at all and in the words that we use when we stand for election, and if the statements that we put out on social media have any meaning at all, parties in the Chamber who say that they want to restore Lough Neagh and that put out social media posts last night saying that they are working to restore Lough Neagh should vote for the motion today, because we saw the consequences over the summer of not dealing with these actions. We are going to see blue-green algae blooms in Lough Neagh, and we have seen them already in other watercourses. I hope that we do not start to see them sprout in greater numbers in Belfast lough and in other watercourses on this island, but we could. We need to start this work now. We need to take it seriously, and we need to be honest with everyone about the journey that we need to take together.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he accept that blue-green algae is not a recent phenomenon? It has been affecting freshwater lakes for well over a century. Does the Member accept that the NAP policy that the Minister brought forward was scrapped because it disproportionately put the blame at the farmer's door instead of bringing people together to target the likes of those who pump waste water into the lough?

Mr O'Toole: There are a couple of things there. First, it is never an argument to say that a problem has been going on for a century. So many of the things that we debate — violence against women and low economic productivity — have been going on for a long time, but that is not an argument not to do anything about them. That is absurd, with respect.

Secondly, it is not about individual farmers, who support their communities and work to feed their families, but there is agricultural run-off. A lot of that is to do with intensification and big agri-food business. That is why, among the proposals in our paper, which was launched by our party leader Claire Hanna a couple of weeks ago, is our call for a levy on the profits of big agricultural producers who have been responsible for some of that intensification and pollution. The SDLP is often told in the Chamber that we are not willing to come forward with proposals. There is a proposal. We have other proposals. We call for more North/South cooperation. We call for an independent environmental protection agency, and I hope that we are going to get clarity on that. We call for a well-being of future generations Act, as they have in Wales, to bind the Executive to an obligation on environmental protection and sustainability. We have not yet seen any of those actions from the Executive. The Member's party serves in and jointly runs that Executive, so he has some culpability and responsibility too.

I mentioned waste water in my remarks. Yes, we should invest in waste water. I am sure that the Member, with his colleague the deputy First Minister, is making the arguments for investment in waste water and pressing for a plan, because that is part of the story. However, the overall story is that, before the summer, something happened that should not have happened: parties in this Chamber who said that they were going to protect Lough Neagh, the most precious resource on this island, at the very first opportunity, backed away and walked away from the action necessary to deal with it.

I do not pretend that these things are easy. Nothing that is worth doing is easy: that is true. It is not easy to deal with these things. We have to be honest with people that we have been putting too much agricultural pollution into Lough Neagh. It is not easy to make the choice to invest more in NI Water. However, if we are serious about rescuing our greatest natural resource, we need to be serious and straight with the public. We cannot constantly say one thing and do another, or, worse, say one thing, do nothing and allow our most precious natural resource to fall further and further into decline. I urge the Assembly to back our motion.

Mr Kearney: Throughout this summer, the catastrophic pollution consuming Lough Neagh has become even more extreme, but it did not start this summer. The biodiversity and ecological well-being of our lough now faces a sustained existential threat, the like of which we have never seen. So too do the commercial fishing industry, the tourism offering around the lough shore, the historical heritage and all associated with Lough Neagh.

Our commercial fishermen, and those of us who work with them and who know the lough shore, have predicted, since 2023, that this pollution would continue to worsen. That is what has happened. The total termination of eel fishing for the 2025 season graphically illustrates how this deepening crisis has devastated livelihoods and economic activity right around the lough shore and into the adjoining waterways. Following the termination of eel fishing in 2025, I wrote to the AERA Minister calling on him to introduce a financial assistance scheme for Lough Neagh eel fishermen. I appeal again to the Minister and the Department to consider the necessity of a support package for our commercial fishermen. They have been left without income since May, and many of them face unemployment, debt and financial ruin. The repercussions for local fishermen, their families, eel exports and the wider lough shore community are frankly incalculable.

As we work to address the ecological catastrophe in Lough Neagh, immediate supports are needed to secure that critical tradition of commercial fishing and the livelihoods of all those who depend upon it. The intensified pollution of this year needs to be met with decisive, coordinated action involving all the relevant stakeholders, including the Fishermen's Co-operative and the Lough Neagh Partnership. I know that the Minister is directly engaged with both.

Sometimes, there are issues in politics, and in this place, that are so critical that they demand consensus.

Today, in this debate, the current crisis in Lough Neagh needs to be elevated above party politics. There has been too much point-scoring over recent months, none of which will resolve the crisis in the lough and none of which will redeem the fortunes of fishermen, their families and everyone who lives around the lough shore. We need political agreement, not divergence, in our collective efforts, as an Executive and throughout the Assembly, to address this unprecedented ecological emergency.

Lough Neagh is no longer a regional crisis; it is far beyond that. It is a national emergency that demands a joint political priority from the Assembly and the Irish Government. Our response to the scale of the crisis in the lough requires North/South governmental action with a dedicated focus from the British and Irish Governments. That should be an agreed position from our Assembly and Executive and, I hope, flowing from the debate today.

Miss McIlveen: We can agree across the Chamber that we are concerned about the return of blue-green algae at Lough Neagh and other sites across Northern Ireland and the impact that it has had on many, including the eel fishery. We also agree that all necessary actions should be taken to address the problems. Where we do not agree is in the approach adopted by the Minister and his Department, nor do we agree, unsurprisingly, that the motion calling for the NAP consultation to be withdrawn was misguided.

The SDLP appears to have come to the Chamber today to patronise us but seems to forget that our motion pointed out fundamental flaws in the consultation and called for genuine partnership to develop workable and sustainable proposals that would address the sources of pollution. Those flaws included the failure to co-design proposals with key stakeholders, including the Ulster Farmers’ Union (UFU), the huge cost implications to the agrisector — £40 million in new costs, £33 million for low-emission slurry-spreading equipment (LESSE) alone and another £7 million for phosphorus separation systems at anaerobic digester plants. That does not include the £3·6 million each year for inspections, databases and added bureaucracy. Those are only basic costings and do not reflect the true economic impact, as that work still has not been carried out by DAERA.

Further to that, the failure to carry out a proper economic assessment to go along with the proposals; phosphorus balances fail to recognise the economic realities faced by our farmers; the introduction of buffer strips, reducing the land available for productive use and driving up land prices; the lack of peer-reviewed scientific evidence to underpin the proposals; and the failure to evaluate and incorporate current schemes, such as the soil nutrient health scheme and the sustainable utilisation of livestock slurry (SULS) project, which were designed to provide solutions to the industry to help with nutrient redistribution within Northern Ireland. All were totally ignored by the NAP proposals.

Genuine co-design is where you need to bring people together and bring them with you, and, in doing that, you are much more likely to have buy-in and some success. Workable proposals also need to be evidence-based and not ideologically driven. The approach of the Minister and the Department has been to punish farmers while ignoring others, such as Northern Ireland Water, industry and construction.

We know that the SDLP has abandoned its position of supporting our agrisector, despite what Mr O'Toole said in his opening remarks. That was clear in how it voted on the NAP proposals. It is further clear in its new proposals to introduce an agri-tax. As if farmers are not finding it tight enough due to the actions of the Labour Party in Government, now its sister party, the SDLP, wants to stick the boot in even more. How much more does the SDLP think farmers can take before the industry completely collapses?

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way and for the important work that she has done on the issue. Does the Member agree that, if the motion were to pass today, it would directly contradict a cross-party, cross-community vote in the House, which showed parties standing up for farmers?

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Miss McIlveen: Absolutely. The SDLP has also totally ignored the numerous debates that we have had in the Chamber over the past year. Rising costs, inheritance tax changes, farm payments, ever tighter and costly regulations — and now it wants the agriculture sector to pay even more while ignoring Northern Ireland Water and industry.

There are solutions to the blue-green algae issue. They are cross-sectoral and do not involve singling out the farming industry.

Mr Durkan: Will the Member give way?

Miss McIlveen: No, if you do not mind.

They involve providing collaborative leadership and support, not knee-jerk punitive measures that will have a devastating impact on our rural communities and our local economy.

It is worth reiterating the DUP's position on the matter. We support a multi-agency, cross-sectoral response. We also support serious action on waste water treatment, including strict enforcement against deliberate polluters. We do not support the scapegoating of farmers. We have consistently seen an imbalance in the approach to environmental protection, and, sadly, the motion plays into that imbalance.

Given the actions of the Minister subsequent to our motion, it was clear from his actions, if not his words, that, by establishing the stakeholder group, he recognises that consultation was premature. That group should have been established beforehand to help to develop the NAP proposals, not to patch them up retrospectively. It might be useful if the Minister took the opportunity today to acknowledge that he got it wrong in jumping the gun with the consultation and that genuine partnership working is the best way forward. It is disappointing that the SDLP does not recognise that. Instead, it decided to conflate two issues today, and, as a result of that, we are unable to support the motion.

Mr McMurray: At the start, I want to make it clear that the burden of solving Lough Neagh cannot be borne by DAERA alone. It is incumbent on the whole Executive and everyone in the Chamber to help deliver the Programme for Government commitment to protect Lough Neagh. While agriculture undoubtedly must play its part, we cannot address the issue without addressing our failing waste water infrastructure. It is time for an Infrastructure Minister to stop the sticking-plaster approach and solve the waste water and sewage crisis flowing into our waterways.

That said, I will start with Minister Muir's efforts to address agriculture's contribution to the blue-green algae blooms that are blighting Lough Neagh and state for the record how other parties have failed to back him. That includes necessary actions, such as reversing the cap on cross-compliance penalties for repeat offenders, which was brought in by his DUP predecessor. That was an important moment that should have signalled the Assembly's support for ensuring that there are consequences for pollution, yet it was blocked by other Executive parties, and, regrettably, the SDLP did not support the Minister at that juncture. That said, the Opposition changed course later in the summer when Sinn Féin, the DUP and the UUP called for the Minister to abandon his consultation on the nutrients action programme. The aforementioned parties did not want to begin talking about the NAP. They wanted to scrap the NAP and the conversation that went with it as an opportunity to seek remedies. Thankfully, the Minister was not deterred, and the nutrients action programme consultation went ahead and, regardless, has now concluded.

I welcome the fact that the Minister is now moving forward with a stakeholder group of environmental and agricultural representatives to develop revised proposals. Finalised proposals will be put to further consultation before being brought through the Executive for consideration. I hope that Executive parties and the Opposition will rally around the Minister in this opportunity to be constructive and find solutions that are workable at farm level. It is too important an issue to play politics with, so, rather than cheap political point-scoring and stoking angst, all parties need to do the right thing, recognise the urgency of the situation and get behind the necessary actions. It is obvious that the ecological and environmental balance of the lough is off-kilter, but we in the Chamber and the Executive have a responsibility to lead on what the Minister is doing.

All parties like to highlight the plight of Lough Neagh, but sometimes the rhetoric does not marry up with their actions. The Minister has stressed a number of big-ticket items that he is to bring forward, which will truly test the Executive and other Members in the Chamber on how committed they are to solving the issue. The first has been touched on already around agreeing proposals for the nutrients action programme. In addition to that, it is strengthening the environmental governance through the establishment of an independent environmental protection agency (EPA), agreeing a final climate action plan and supporting his new fisheries and water environment Bill.

Finally, we cannot think about solving the crisis in Lough Neagh and our waterways in general without thinking about sewage and waste water infrastructure. Minister Muir has been clear about his desire to strengthen the regulation and enforcement of sewage pollution being pumped into our waterways. It is totally unacceptable that the Infrastructure Minister refuses to tackle that head-on and reverse the disgraceful situation where raw sewage is being pumped into our waterways. Our waste water systems are failing, and there are all the environmental and economic consequences that go with that, yet the Minister refuses to tackle NI Water's governance and finances. All sectors must play a part in tackling the crisis. The farmers whom I speak to expect fairness. They are dismayed at the fact that the Infrastructure Minister refuses to step up to the plate and tackle waste water infrastructure. She needs to look at better solutions and make the difficult decisions within her remit without delay.

This is not only about Lough Neagh, as the motion acknowledges. My South Down constituency does not border the lough, but we see the same issues in some of our fresh waterbodies, not least Castlewellan lake. I am also conscious of the fact that the headwaters of the River Bann are in my constituency. As is well noted, our rivers are in poor ecological health, and some of our rivers and streams are distilled into Lough Neagh. The environment, by its very nature, is connected.

I have had the opportunity to sponsor events in the Building highlighting the work of the Clean Water Sports Alliance. That the motion seeks to highlight the societal impacts of the issue is important. Angling, open-water swimming, canoeing, kayaking, stand-up paddleboarding, rowing, sailing and triathlon are the sports that make up the alliance, and those sports have been adversely affected by the state of our waterways. It is an issue for all of Northern Ireland, and we urgently need the Executive and the parties that are in opposition to play their part.

Ms D Armstrong: I thank the Members who tabled the motion. People from all walks of life across Northern Ireland are concerned at the situation that is unfolding on Lough Neagh. They all want to have good-quality water in their inland waterways and, of course, in Lough Neagh, but I can say without a doubt that no one, for one moment, wants to play the blame game that some in the Chamber would have us play. We have to approach the problem with respect and understanding: respect for those who are already impacted on and understanding of the effect that any intended future actions will have on other stakeholders and sectors as we work towards having a plan to address the blue-green algae. If we are to move forward, it will require community and sector buy-in, not a top-down approach and virtue signalling in the House. It is therefore essential that we move past finding a scapegoat to understanding what is happening in Lough Neagh, because blaming farmers is too simple.

Farming is but one spoke in a large wheel that is affecting the lough, yet, according to AgriSearch analysis, the initial NAP proposals that Minister Muir published would have generated annual losses of around £1·6 billion across agriculture in Northern Ireland, had they been implemented. It is not unique to Northern Ireland but a global problem. In Great Britain, Lake Windermere is impacted on by raw sewage.

The Lough Neagh ecosystem is shaped by biology as well as chemistry: it is shaped by many inputs and many outputs. The warning signs on Lough Neagh have been visible for years, yet the relevant Departments have failed to take coordinated, preventative action. The presence of 836 storm overflows that discharge directly or indirectly into the Lough Neagh management area and its tributaries points to a broader systemic issue, one that implicates not just DAERA but the Department for Infrastructure, which is failing us all.

It is also notable to acknowledge the invasive zebra mussels, the presence of which has changed the ecology by clarifying the water and shifting where and when the algae can grow.

I will briefly mention the nutrients action programme, as it is important that I clarify things. I was against the plan, because it goes far beyond the original NAP, and the proposals would have had a devastating impact on the agri-food sector. The reality of the NAP was that the Minister's carrot was too small and his stick too big. The agri-food sector must be part of the solution and not be treated as the problem. For that reason, the UUP will vote against the motion.

Lough Neagh is not a problem that can be solved by scapegoating one sector. The situation demands a multi-departmental response — something that has been lacking of late — and a clear strategy that has buy-in from all stakeholders.

Ms Finnegan: Sinn Féin is deeply concerned at the return of blue-green algae in Lough Neagh and other waterways. That pollution has severe environmental, economic and social consequences. Its continued presence harms biodiversity, threatens public health and is a hammer blow to our eel-fishing communities, which have already suffered losses of income over the past two fishing seasons.

I reiterate my party colleague Declan Kearney's call for supports to be provided to the eel fishing sector, which has been affected by the eel fishing ban and has received no support to mitigate that loss.

In July 2024, at the Executive, Sinn Féin agreed to the Lough Neagh action plan, which had 37 actions, many of which have already been implemented, with others earmarked for delivery. The action plan is not a complete solution, and there are no quick fixes. However, it provides a clear and practical pathway towards addressing the environmental breakdown of the lough and restoring it to its natural beauty. Among the actions is a small business research initiative, which gives businesses the funding opportunity to innovate, research and bring forward solutions to remove pollution from the lough and restore it for future generations. In April 2025, John O'Dowd, as Finance Minister, reiterated Sinn Féin's commitment to the action plan by allocating an additional £5 million towards tackling the pollution and safeguarding the lough for many years ahead.

On the nutrients action programme, let me be clear: Sinn Féin supports the principle of a strong nutrients action plan that protects water quality and tackles pollution. However, we want one that is workable, deliverable, fair, based on just transition principles and works in conjunction with farmers. The establishment of a stakeholder group to bring together communities, farmers, fishermen and environmental bodies is a step in that direction. That is a welcome development, but it is also an admission by the Department that there should have been more of an effort on the Minister's part to properly engage farmers, fishermen and communities at the outset when developing the NAP proposals. Equally, the Department's acknowledgement that there needs to be a more detailed economic impact assessment of how NAP proposals would affect farmers underlines the need for greater engagement so that the impact on family farm incomes is fully understood.

Let us be under no illusions: whether NAP was agreed or not before June, we would still have experienced the blue-green algae in the lough during the summer. While it forms part of the solution, it is clear that restoring the lough will require not only short-term actions but a range of long-term measures to have a meaningful impact. Part of that solution must be an end to the Earl of Shaftesbury's ownership of the lough bed. That is something that Sinn Féin has long called for, even before the presence of the algae. Ownership of the lough should be informed by the communities that live beside it and have been its guardians for generations. On a practical level, transfer of ownership would help to better regulate and implement environmental protections pertaining to the lough. In the past, we have seen how the current arrangements have resulted in regulation falling between stools, with agencies not taking responsibility or not having sufficient responsibility, while the lough suffered the consequences.

I welcome today's debate and the opportunity to once again set out Sinn Féin's unwavering commitment to addressing the issue of Lough Neagh. Let us work constructively together with the Minister, the Executive and, most importantly, local communities to ensure that, step by step, day by day and bit by bit, we undo the environmental damage that has been done to the lough and restore it for future generations.

Mr T Buchanan: The situation facing Lough Neagh and some other watercourses in Northern Ireland requires a common-sense approach that is balanced and rooted in reality. I have no doubt that everyone in the Chamber will be in agreement that to tackle effectively the source of the pollution affecting our waterways will require a collective effort. However, it is foolhardy for the Minister and others in the House to be of the mindset that to put in place extreme environmental policies that would have devastating consequences for our agriculture industry is a way to resolve the blue-green algae problem. To put extreme environmental policies in place is not a quick fix. There is no short-term fix to the problem. The Minister said, in his statement on the Lough Neagh action plan:

Although we fully support rigorous enforcement action against deliberate polluters of our waterways, I am crystal clear that we will not allow agriculture to be the scapegoat or to be treated as the sole culprit for this issue, as has been the order of the day from others around the Chamber.

I want to pose some questions to the Minister. What serious engagement have you had with Northern Ireland Water about the colossal amount of raw sewage that is going into our waterways every day from its sewage plants and individual septic tanks? What assessment have you and your Department carried out into the damage that that is causing? Perhaps you will also inform the House of the sanctions that you propose to place on Northern Ireland Water to curb the daily flow of raw sewage into our waterways. What plans do you have to take enforcement action against it, just as you and your Department rightly take against other individuals who are found guilty of polluting? The same action that you take against other individuals for polluting needs to be taken against Northern Ireland Water.

Mr McCrossan: I thank my constituency colleague for kindly giving way. I recognise his concern for the farming community. He has rightly been an advocate for the farming community for quite a number of years. However, does he agree that the fines that are in place are no deterrent to those polluters, regardless of who they are or what sector they come from, and that they need to be increased?

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr T Buchanan: Thank you.

Again, that is something that is open for discussion. Our farmers are not only the custodians of the countryside, who put food on our tables; they are the backbone and keystone of our rural economy. They have a deep passion for the environmental sustainability of the land that they farm. They take extreme care around the watercourses that run through their land. In previous years, they had no objections to working with the Department to implement sensible and common-sense solutions to help improve the countryside and the environment. However, it is totally unacceptable for the Minister to seek to impose the NAP proposals on an industry without proper consultation. Over 5,000 signatures from across Northern Ireland were presented in the House as part of a petition that called for the withdrawal of the consultation and for serious engagement with the farming community to bring forward workable plans to which all could buy in to help to improve and protect our environment, which we all cherish. Farmers want to and must be part of any plans that are brought forward for the improvement of our environment; otherwise, they will be counterproductive.

The NAP proposals that are being pursued by the Minister are not the answer to addressing the blue-green algae issue. We need a cross-sectoral, multi-agency response. I therefore call on the Minister to do the right thing and scrap his ideological NAP proposals. Let us work with the relevant agencies and industry on a more pragmatic way forward for the protection and continued improvement of our water quality throughout Northern Ireland.

Mr Tennyson: By this stage, we all know that Lough Neagh is dying in plain sight. For the third summer in a row, toxic blue-green algae has enveloped its waters. That putrid green sludge has suffocated wildlife and upended key parts of our rural economy. However, the ecological crisis in Lough Neagh is not seasonal; its roots are in decades of inertia and neglect in the Assembly. We know the causes: nutrient run-off from agriculture, and sewage and septic tanks. We know the consequences in terms of biodiversity loss, livelihoods being upended and real public health risks. Crucially, we also know the solutions. Those solutions, however, require tough decisions and real political leadership, both of which have been in short supply in the Chamber, particularly from the DUP and Sinn Féin, since the Assembly returned over a year ago.

Despite repeated promises and commitments and talk of the need for collective action on Lough Neagh, time and again we have seen responsible environmental stewardship sacrificed on the altar of political expediency, with key reforms being resisted because they would upset powerful interests. When the Minister brought regulations to remove the cap on cross-compliance penalties for repeat polluters, the DUP and Sinn Féin opposed them. When the nutrients action plan went out to public consultation, both parties supported a motion advocating for it to be scrapped. Such posturing stretches credulity to its elastic limit.

I note that Sinn Féin's environment spokesperson welcomed the fact that a stakeholder group has now been set up. I hope that that amounts to a turning of the page and that there can be a more collective effort going forward. However, that is not what the Assembly voted for. It voted to outright scrap those proposals, and the Minister will not adhere to that request. Mr Kearney said that proposals demand consensus for a situation of this gravity, and I do not disagree with him, but consensus was reached in the Lough Neagh action plan that was agreed at the Executive. That made clear that a nutrients action plan would have to be taken forward. He said that this matter is above party politics, and that is a convenient defence to hide behind when you have aligned yourself with the DUP to block key environmental action despite having promised your electorate that you would clean up the crisis in Lough Neagh. I ask Sinn Féin Members in particular to reflect on that.

The people of Northern Ireland are not fools. They know that you cannot deal with agricultural run-off without a robust NAP, that you cannot tackle pollution without hiking fines on repeat polluters and that you cannot clean up Lough Neagh with photo opportunities and warm words. Despite the lack of support that we have seen in the Chamber, some progress has nevertheless been made. Northern Ireland's first environment strategy has been agreed, with a focus on improving land, air and water quality. The Lough Neagh action plan is now in place, and a number of key actions are moving forward or have been completed, including the small business research initiative and the new task force, which has conducted over 300 site investigations already. We now have a crucial opportunity to step forward collectively and go further.

We often hear the criticism, and we heard it again in the debate, that the focus is too often on agriculture and not on NI Water, and I agree that there is an inherent unfairness in the fact that NI Water gets a bye ball for pollution incidents. However, the Minister has stated multiple times that he wishes to proceed to scrap the SORPI arrangements to ensure that that is no longer the case so that NI Water can face the same fines and penalties as other polluters. We cannot deny the fact, however, that 62% of the nutrient pollution that is causing the blue-green algae blooms in Lough Neagh comes from agriculture, so we have to work with agriculture to set a more sustainable course.

We also need to see action from the Infrastructure Minister to bring forward an expert-led review of NI Water, with a view to finally stopping waste water sewage pollution. Support is also required to hike fines and penalties further and to introduce the long-overdue environmental protection agency, which the Assembly has dithered on in previous mandates.

Those are not niche environmental issues but are matters of social justice. The communities who live around the lough deserve clean water, sustainable livelihoods and a Government who do not just talk but take action. I hope that, today, we will move on from this habit of passing non-binding motions and wringing our hands at the crisis in Lough Neagh and instead actually take the action that is needed to deal with the crisis.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Members for bringing the motion to the House.

I will start by addressing one of the final points made by the Member who spoke previously, the Alliance Member for Upper Bann. We need to work with farmers. That is exactly what we need to do. We should work not with farmers alone but with everybody, but farmers have be included as part of this. They are an essential part of it, so I do not think that we can ignore them, move on and do things without bringing them with us. It is very important that we work together to address that.

Protecting our environment and safeguarding Lough Neagh is a critical priority for Sinn Féin, as I hope it is for all of us, including our farming community. I declare an interest, as I did earlier, as somebody who comes from an agricultural background. It is not a highly productive agricultural background, so I certainly do not think that we add in any way to any pollution.

I also have a husband who is an angler. Like every other angler and fisherman, he loves the rivers and wants to protect and look after them. I understand the importance of the issue.

Like many of you, I find the return of the blue-green algae this summer deeply disturbing. With its devastating environmental, social and economic consequences, it threatens biodiversity, wildlife, the safety of our water and the livelihoods of those who depend on the lough, as previous contributors mentioned. The matter is personal to me, because I live five minutes from the lough shore. I live five minutes from the Washing Bay, and I have worked closely with communities along the lough shore — in my local community around Derrylaughan and Brockagh — to support the development of excellent facilities for local residents and those who come to visit. They are right on the shore of an amazing natural resource that must be protected. We all need to work together to make sure that that is exactly what happens.

I appreciate the information that the Minister provided to us this morning on plans for a potential Shared Island programme to improve the water quality of Lough Neagh. That is positive. As we all know, rivers do not recognise borders. We must ensure that we have an all-Ireland approach to protecting all our waterways. As my colleague Declan Kearney outlined, there must be maximum cooperation between the Minister and the Government in the South to seek and implement actions to protect the lough.

Lough Neagh is central to life on this island. It sustains local communities and rural economies. It supports fishermen, farmers, tourism operators and those who live around its shores. The pollution crisis on the lough has multiple causes that have all been outlined, and I do not deny any of them. The crisis did not occur overnight, and I understand that it will take time to fix the problems, but we have an Executive action plan. We must all work together to implement it in order to deliver our vision of a healthy, sustainable lough that will be there for the generations that come after us: our children and grandchildren.

There is an onus on all of us to act for the health of our environment and the future of everyone who relies on that vital resource. It should not be a blame game, and it should not involve ignoring science or data in order to chase votes. The reality is that it will take all of us — government, local communities, farmers, fishermen and environmental groups — working together to solve the issue. Everyone must have a say and be genuinely and actively listened to. We must take on board people's ideas and what they say. They know what they are talking about. We need to listen to them.

Progress has been made through additional funding secured by the Finance Minister, John O'Dowd, earlier this year to fund initiatives such as the small business research initiative, which harnesses innovative science-based and evidence-based solutions. We need to have a focus on those. I welcome the AERA Minister's commitment to a stakeholder task and finish group to bring the farmers, agri-food sector, environmental groups and government officials together to develop evidence-based and workable measures. It must include those who look after and protect rivers that run into the lough and, in particular — I again declare my interest — the angling groups that look after those rivers. The Member for West Tyrone who spoke earlier has an interest in that as well.

It is crucial that farmers are supported to make changes in a fair and realistic way. Just transition principles must be applied to ensure that the costs do not fall disproportionately on those who are potentially the least able to bear them. We need to bring everyone with us. Forcing through measures that are unworkable or unaffordable does no good for anyone and, ultimately, is counterproductive.

It is essential to remember that the lough is not just a body of water; it is the heart of many communities. It is the heart of my community.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mrs Dillon: It provides livelihoods, sustains biodiversity and offers huge potential for economic opportunities.

Mr Bradley: Mr Speaker, you will be pleased to hear that most of my points have been covered already and that I will not repeat them.

Toxic cyanobacteria blooms, especially in the summer of 2023 and 2024 as well as this year, have depleted oxygen levels in the lough to such an extent that they block light and lead to fish kills and a decline in aquatic biodiversity. It is not just the ecosystem in Lough Neagh that appears to have collapsed. I do not want to cross into the territory of repeating anything that my colleagues have said, so I will narrow my concerns to the River Bann, which is the only river to spawn salmon and white trout into the Lough Neagh system. Recreational angling and water sports businesses along the River Bann have been severely impacted. Some operators have been forced to close entirely due to unsafe water conditions and customer cancellations, not to mention the blue flag beaches of Benone, Portstewart and Portrush along a tidal stretch of the Bann at the Barmouth.

I would like to ask questions. It is OK to highlight what is wrong, but what are we doing to fix it? Since the crisis was first discovered in 2023, how many buffer zones, wetlands, hedgerows and trees have been established to filter nitrates and phosphorus before they reach the water? What rewilding or reintroduction of key ecological players like invertebrates to rebuild the food web has happened since 2023? Has any exploration of control of invasive species such as zebra mussels taken place since 2023? I could be wrong, but I assume that one zebra mussel could filter at least one litre of water per day, removing valuable food plankton from the water.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. We talk about irrigation and the need to oxidate the water to stop the blue-green algae. Does he agree that the lack of dredging of our rivers has hugely impacted on the flow of water in and out of Lough Neagh, affecting the river that he mentioned?

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Bradley: Thank you. I thank the Member for his intervention. I have mixed views on river dredging, so I do not want to drift into that territory.

Has testing for cyanotoxins in water been extended to fish to help to gauge ecosystem health and inform public warnings since 2023 or earlier? What long-term ecological research and data baselines have been established to track recovery and inform adaptive management? How many of the 37-odd measures agreed in July 2024 have been implemented? What extra funding has been afforded to the Minister to roll out regulation, infrastructure and community engagement?

Minister, I feel that the situation is verging on irreversible, if that point has not already been reached. I agree with the Minister that the ecological disaster needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency. I call on all parties in the Executive to explore extra finance and address that destruction. It is not just about farming practices but about sewage discharges, illegal pollution and septic tanks.

Words are nothing but empty vessels. It is time for action, not talking. In my opinion, there is no action, so I cannot support the motion.

Mr Buckley: As I mentioned earlier, the issue of blue-green algae is not new. It is happening around the world. My colleague Miss McIlveen set out the case for why my party believes that the Minister's proposed nutrients action programme is an existential threat to Northern Ireland's agriculture. It risks jobs, cuts livestock, penalises farmers and destroys Northern Ireland's last remaining indigenous industry.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: In a moment.

Words matter. Absolutely, words matter. That is why I cannot support the motion, particularly when it

I will give way in a moment, Mr O'Toole. Mr Tennyson and I rarely agree in the Chamber, but there was a point in his speech when he was absolutely fundamentally correct. He said that the House passed a motion calling for the NAP proposals to be withdrawn. Does Sinn Féin support today's motion, which expresses regret about that motion? Is anybody prepared to answer? I have not heard it from Sinn Féin. Make no mistake: if Sinn Féin supports today's motion, it will have deliberately and callously put the dagger in the back of the farmers who, it said on a previous occasion in the Chamber, were under huge threat from the Minister's proposal. The Alliance Party may not credit me with many things, but they can credit me with one thing: I will be consistent on the matter.

Mr McAleer, a Member for Mid Ulster, stated in this place that Mr Muir's proposals were "not fit for purpose". Quote: "Muir must start again". The Member for South Down, Mrs Mason, said:

That is exactly what you said when farmers asked us to speak up for them. If you support the motion, you will have done a 180-degree U-turn on the position that you outlined in the House. If that is the case, it is a huge betrayal of the farming community. Is it any wonder that trust in politicians is at an all-time low when they come to the House one month and say that they will stand up and protect farmers and, the next month or months after, say weasel words and hedge their bets?

For the second time, I ask it: will Sinn Féin support this motion? There are eight Sinn Féin Members in the Chamber right now: will they support the motion? If they do, they will grossly betray farmers of all creeds and all backgrounds in Northern Ireland — nationalist farmers, republican farmers, unionist farmers, other farmers, whatever type of farmer. If you support the motion, you fundamentally —

Mrs Dillon: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: In a minute. The Sinn Féin Member has asked me to take an intervention, and I will. I hope that she will clarify whether she will support the motion.

Mrs Dillon: No, but she will clarify that the farmers whom she knows are pig farmers, sheep farmers and cattle farmers. They do not tell me their creed or their voting affiliation before they speak to me: they are farmers.

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for her intervention. There absolutely are farmers of all creeds, but, right now, Sinn Féin has failed on the third occasion to clarify whether it will support a motion that expresses regret at the position that it expressed in the House months previously. That is a gross betrayal of the beef farmer, the pig farmer, the dairy farmer, the hill farmer and the sheep farmer. Sinn Féin is talking out of both sides of its mouth in today's debate. That is where my criticism lies: if those Members are not prepared to stand up and speak out for farmers, rather than speaking out of both sides of their mouth, in whom can those farmers place their trust? The body politic is damaged daily by politicians who are prepared to tell voters one thing and do the exact opposite.

The motion makes no reference to serial polluters such as NI Water, which has dumped millions of tons of raw sewage into our waterways and into Lough Neagh — not a single mention. Its default position is to go after the farmer. Perhaps the House could collectively agree on a motion that would take on NI Water and those who have polluted with raw sewage for years, rather than default to blaming the farmer every time.

The farmer is watching. Which way will Sinn Féin vote today?

Mr McGlone: Last night, I was, I think, the only MLA who attended a meeting in Moortown at Kinturk cultural centre. That is exactly the sort of stuff that people there said that they did not want to hear: ping-ponging back and forward on ideological grounds; you blame, he blames, she blames. No disrespect, Jonny, but the message from the hundred-odd people in that room was unanimously clear.

I am a lifelong resident of the lough shore. I have represented the area for 32 years. I know and respect the views of the people whom I spoke to last night. One man told me that he was thinking of moving out of his house this summer because of the stink that was coming off the lough.

There were wildfowlers there last night who were afraid to take their dogs out to the lough on the first morning of the shooting season. There were families and young people there who are deeply concerned about the quality of the water supply. They were concerned for themselves, their families and the very animals in the agriculture sector that we are talking about. The clear message from the people at the meeting was that they do not want arguments. They want action, and they want us to get on with taking it.

Brown eel fishing closed down during the summer. The brown eel is a symbol of the Lough Neagh economy, but it is also a cultural symbol. It is a symbol of the resistance of Irish fishermen, who took to the courts to establish their right to fish their own lough. It is a crying shame to see that industry evaporating before our very eyes. There were fishermen there last night, and I hope to hear from the Minister about support for the fishing industry. It is a crying shame to see what is happening on our lough. That cultural symbol of Lough Neagh and the island is disappearing. Everything that the public are seeing demands action, but it must be the right kind of action and be collaborative. It is a complex crisis that requires partnership, innovation and shared responsibility across all sectors.

I want the Minister to clarify whether he is getting support from his Executive colleagues. Are they are ponying up? Are they giving him the money to support the farming community, the fishing community, new methods of on-farm practice and other methods and innovative measures, scientific and otherwise, that will be required to reassert the ecological and environmental value of Lough Neagh?

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr McGlone: Sure.

Mr O'Toole: Does my colleague agree that it is also important to note what Members have said about NI Water being a critical part of all of this? It is. They should, through the Executive, support a plan for funding NI Water, which we have not got at the moment.

Mr McGlone: Totally. We need to hear NI Water's proposals and about the departmental drive behind those proposals, from an investment and a scientific point of view. The methodology of monitoring the water supply came up at the meeting last night as well. Furthermore, monitoring what is being ingested by humans definitely came up last night.

The only way in which to address all that is by drastically reducing the excessive levels of nutrients — phosphorus and nitrogen — in the lough. Over 60% of the phosphorus in the water originates from agriculture, while one third comes from waste water treatment facilities and septic tanks.

On the issue of agriculture, I need to emphasise the point that much has been made of farming in the debate. God knows that those of us who try to work with and support farmers do our simple best for them. That is why the Assembly and the Executive need to step up to the plate and support those farmers who are willing to conserve our environment and are committed to doing so.

I have to mention one thing, and it is a fact. Moy Park is owned by a US multinational company. It is not a local company. Its profits rose by 151% in 2023. Can anyone name any farmer whose profits rose by 151% in 2023, or in any other year for that matter? There is not a pup's chance. In the meantime, however, there have been hundreds of breaches of legal limits of environmental pollutants by that same company. Please square that circle for me.

Our approach recognises the urgency of the environmental situation, but it also acknowledges the realities on the ground. In addition to the necessary upgrades to the waste water and sewage network — we have already spoken about that — any sustainable policy must be co-designed and must not be imposed. That is the only way in which we can achieve lasting change. It must include key issues, such as collaboration, education, support and financial incentivisation. Again, it is back to the Minister to advise whether that support is forthcoming —

Mr Speaker: Time is up.

Mr McGlone: — or whether it is just empty words.

Mr Speaker: Mr McNulty has requested to speak for a minute, he said. We are tight for time, and I will use the grace period, but I want to get to all those who had their names down.

Mr McGlone: Sorry, am I —?

Mr Speaker: You are over. [Laughter.]

Thank you for your contribution, but it is over.

Mr McNulty: I speak as someone who proudly comes from a farming background. I miss milking the cows. I miss dehorning the calves. I miss covering the silage and experiencing the transition from hay to silage. I miss testing and dosing cattle. I have brought calves to market in the link box on the back of the tractor. I miss all that

but the visceral recall of being on the lough shore as a kid and being in my Uncle Barney and Auntie Rita's house and first tasting the silver eels, experiencing the rubbery taste, is a memory you cannot forget. It is unbelievable. I remember the sense of pride that they had in their local produce and the fact that it was a delicacy that was transported and sold across the world — even in France. I was mesmerised by that fact.

Eel fishing plays a vital role as an ecological, economic and cultural ecosystem that has survived and thrived around the lough shore. Eel fishing forms a unique part of the community consciousness, and it needs to be protected. That is all I have to say. Thank you very much.

Mr Speaker: Thank you, Mr McNulty. You were good to your word.

Mr Gaston: To ensure harmony, at the opening of my contribution, I will first look at what we all can agree on. We all can agree that Lough Neagh is of huge value to the people of Northern Ireland. We can all agree that, as the largest freshwater lake in the British Isles, it is vital for wildlife, fisheries and the wider community, in general. On that, we are all agreed. Equally, no one in the Chamber can dispute the fact that the blue-green algae issue that was first sighted in the lough in 1923 is a very serious problem, and one that we, as legislators, must address. However, at this juncture, I believe that I will part company with the environmentalists.

There are all too many in the House and outside it who are looking for a scapegoat for what is, in reality, a complex and multifaceted problem. The issue is real, but the narrative to always blame the farmer is not. We hear the mad environmentalists, both inside the Chamber and outside, lamenting that the farmer is always to blame. We always hear about the ecological disaster of biblical proportions. We hear about the horror stories that the lough is dead and that the algae kills all that lives within it, even though it has been a recurring problem for many years. Do not forget, however, that Northern Ireland Water, which dumps a reported 200,000 tons of raw sewage into the lough each year, tells us that the water is safe to drink, and, let us face it, eel commercial fishing has largely been replaced by those now fishing for trout instead. That shows me that the lough is not dead. The crisis is being used to drive an environmental agenda.

Let us look at the facts: first, an overlooked factor is the issue of Russian zebra mussels, an invasive species that, since around 2005, has been reshaping the character of Lough Neagh. Those filter-feeding invaders have exploded in population over the past two decades. They strip out plankton from the water, disrupting the food chain and, by concentrating phosphorus in the sediments, they fuel the algae blooms, which we are trying to control, due to the sunlight now being able to shine through the cleaner water. Many ask who brought the zebra mussels to Lough Neagh in the first place. Nobody can tell us.

Secondly, we have the elephant in the room, which I have already mentioned: one which, when I first came to the House, the Minister was keen to ignore. That is the issues relating to sewage, storm overflows and trade effluent. When I first raised that point in the House, shortly after my arrival in this place, Minister Muir told me that he did not want to get into a blame game. My question, and the Minister's response, are on record, and, should he wish to dispute it, it is in the Hansard report of 1 October 2024 for all to see. When I raised that point again on 4 November 2024, the story was similar. I trust that we can all now agree that the discharge of untreated sewage directly into rivers and into Lough Neagh, carrying phosphorus, organic matter and bacteria, all of which exacerbate algae growth, needs to stop. Industrial trade effluent adds yet more nutrients to the system. That is another aspect of this whole issue that is regulated by the Northern Ireland Executive through Northern Ireland Water.

Let us not forget that the latest algae blooms correlated with COVID, when we saw a sharp increase in people's use of cleaning products in their homes. Could that be a factor? Have we considered that? Before we look to the farmers, we need to heed the words of scripture: "Physician, heal thyself".

Let us concede, for the sake of argument, that the parties that want to see agriculture in the Province driven to the wall through their NAP and the climate action plan are correct. Let us not forget that the same party and Minister kept AgriSearch out of the NAP stakeholder forum. Those who do not support their mad net-zero policies are approaching this from a different place and are doing so dispassionately.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Gaston: Which of those parties supported the Going for Growth strategy? They need to reflect on that. All those parties were happy to support Going for Growth when it suited them —

Mr Speaker: Time is up.

Mr Gaston: — and now they want to turn their backs on the farmer.

Mr Speaker: Having taken all the relevant factors into consideration, I have decided to apply a grace period of up to 15 minutes to accommodate the Members who are still to speak. I remind those Members that, if they take an intervention, they will not get an extra minute.

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Lough Neagh is one of our most precious natural resources and wildlife sites. It is the source of 40% of the North's drinking water. It is supposed to be protected under local, European and international law, but, in reality, Lough Neagh is a public health hazard and a toxic death zone for local wildlife. Despite the safeguarding of Lough Neagh being a key priority in the Programme for Government, the Executive's empty promises simply are not cutting it. Executive approval was finally secured for a Lough Neagh action plan last summer. Of the plan's 37 points, 23 have not yet been implemented. There are snails' paces, and then there is this. It is no surprise that the parties that continue to subsidise billionaire polluter corporations are not acting in the interests of the lough.

More recently, as has been mentioned, the Minister developed proposals for a new nutrients action programme, which is aimed at tackling pollution in Lough Neagh. That was a bit of positive action: it did not go far enough in the direction in which we need to go, but it would have made some difference to the lough. For other parties in the Chamber — Sinn Féin, the DUP and the UUP — those modest proposals were too radical. They have fallen in line behind the Ulster Farmers' Union, which, certainly in this case, is dead set on maintaining business as usual and defending big corporate polluters rather than on representing the interests of most farmers.

Agricultural pollution is just one cause of the crisis at Lough Neagh, which is multifaceted. Another of the causes is sand dredging, which scars the bed of the lough. Each year, 1·5 million tons of sand are suction-dredged from the lough. It takes the ecosystem decades to recover from that. The lough bed is supposed to be a protected nature reserve for plants, fish and diving birds, but, instead, the Executive allow it to be plundered. Fishermen and fisherwomen have been sounding the alarm about sand dredging and the harm that it does to fish nurseries in an already fragile lough. In 2020, the then SDLP Infrastructure Minister supported sand dredging. The SDLP has still not walked back from its support for that.

Saving Lough Neagh is not an impossible task. The solutions to the crisis are clear and always have been. It should not take decades to save it, and we do not have decades in which to save it. The solutions have been identified by the Save Lough Neagh campaign, Friends of the Earth and many of the communities from around the lough shore. The state of the lough is a permanent physical reminder of our urgent need for an independent environmental protection agency.

The Executive are remarkably poor at protecting our environment, and the NIEA has not done the job for Lough Neagh. It is clear that it has failed to regulate pollution and protect wildlife and communities. As Friends of the Earth put it:

What an apt description of what has been happening in the past couple of years. Without an independent EPA to fine and punish guilty factory farms and agri-food polluters, nutrients and agricultural run-off will continue to flow into the lough and kill it.

In the past decade, the Shaftesbury estate of Lough Neagh made over £245,000 in profit from sand dredging. That is pocket change for an English aristocrat such as Lord Shaftesbury, but the fact that an absentee colonial landlord is profiting from the destruction of our lough is absolutely outrageous. He needs to hand back the lough to the people here, and he should not be paid a penny for it. It is our lough; it is not his family's lough. If he does not hand it back, the state needs to step in and requisition it into public ownership with community management.

A proper crackdown on industrial farming, factory farming and intensive agriculture is long overdue. More than 62% of the phosphorus that causes toxic algal blooms comes from agricultural sources. Part of that demand means properly funding NI Water, which would, of course, transform the lough and people's lives. However, the Executive and, in many cases, the Opposition, see the local ecosystem as something to exploit, not protect. As the most basic bare minimum, the Minister and his Executive colleagues need to get behind efforts to clear up this mess ASAP rather than supporting lobbyists for the rich and powerful corporate polluters. Maybe then the Executive could finally put planet before profit.

Ms Sugden: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your grace on the time.

We know that Lough Neagh is one of our most important natural assets and that it provides almost half of Northern Ireland's drinking water. It supports wildlife, fishing and farming, and it underpins businesses, tourism and recreation across the region. Although it is inevitable, the return of blue-green algae is deeply concerning. It is about not just the environment but people's daily lives. In my constituency recently, businesses at Benone and Castlerock spoke to customers who are staying away because of the warnings. Families are unsure whether it is safe to swim, bring children to the beach or even let their dogs near the shore in case it poisons them. Local charities in my constituency, including Sea2it, have found that the blooms make their clean-up work on the Bann more difficult, and many people want reassurance that the water that comes out of their taps is safe to drink. We have been given that reassurance, but public confidence will last only if we see the source of the problem being addressed.

We know the sources. Too many nutrients are entering the lough from waste water treatment, septic tanks, industry and agriculture. I agree with Mr McCrossan on his point about the fines. In my constituency, someone was convicted recently of polluting the water. That was the second time, because the fine probably was cheaper than changing the way that he does things. We need to address that. It is not good enough. Climate change and invasive species also make the condition worse.

Waste water, however, is where the Government must take the lead. The Northern Ireland Audit Office has highlighted that years of underinvestment have left our system under strain. Phosphorus levels in our waters have worsened over the past decade. The Office for Environmental Protection has also warned that Northern Ireland is not on track to meet its water quality obligations, pointing to the lack of pace and urgency in current plans. We can compare that with England, where every storm overflow is now monitored, data is published and regulators can impose penalties, and with the Republic of Ireland, where most urban waste water now has nutrient removal and performance is regularly reported. Northern Ireland, as usual, is behind.

As others have said, part of the answer lies in how Northern Ireland Water is funded, because, unlike companies in other regions, it depends on the block grant, so its budget rises and falls with the wider political context and pressures, of which there are many. Households already contribute to their water charges through regional rates, but that money is not ring-fenced in the way that water revenues are in England and Wales. Government must be honest about how we can close that gap. Realistically, it would be difficult to ring-fence that money from the regional rate without consequence, because, if that money is directed into water and waste water, it has to be found elsewhere, or cuts will have to be made. However, if we are serious about fixing the problem, that is a conversation that we cannot avoid.

Septic tanks and industry also contribute to the problem, and stronger oversight is needed there too. Agriculture is part of the picture as well. Farmers recognise that nutrient run-off is an issue, and they know that they have a role to play in fixing it. Many of them are taking steps, such as not spreading when rain is forecast, using low-emission spreading equipment and adopting better practices. However, they have told me that they feel blamed, and, sadly, the motion blames them as well. It refers to an earlier motion as "misguided", but it was not; it was a fair reflection of what farmers across Northern Ireland are feeling.

I heard a story about a farmer who took his own life, not necessarily because of this issue but because of the compounding pressures that are being put on farmers, not least by the Labour Government across the water but also by some of the proposals that are being put forward here. That is desperately sad. Farmers must be treated as partners. They want to be listened to, and they want workable measures because, as others have said, they care about the environment. It is part of their job, and it is who they are. If we do not listen to farmers, we will create a new crisis. It may not be for the various Ministers in the Executive, but it is something that we should be concerned about, as farming is our biggest industry in Northern Ireland.

We should have published a timetable for waste water upgrades across Lough Neagh and the Bann system, so that we can see what is happening and when. We should expect full transparency on overflows, with proper monitoring and public data, as is the case in other parts of the UK. We need stronger enforcement around septic tanks and industry because they too play their part. We must work in partnership with farmers to support the good practice that many of them have already adopted. We need measures that are practical, understood and fair. Right now, we are at an impasse, and we are doing nothing. That will not fix the Lough Neagh issue, and it is certainly not going to help our farmers.

I appeal to Members across the Chamber: let us work together, let us listen to one another and let us not blame. This is an issue that will not be fixed this year or next year, maybe not even in the next 10 years, but we need to start somewhere.

Mr Speaker: I call Minister Muir. You have up to 15 minutes, Minister.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important motion and reaffirm my commitment and that of my Department to the protection and restoration of Lough Neagh and its wider catchment. It has been truly heartbreaking this summer to witness yet again the scenes of a lough being suffocated by human-induced blue-green algae blooms. The decline in the eel industry, which has been talked about today, shows the real and tragic impacts of the ecological crisis. We have seen a rise in blue-green algae blooms affecting not only Lough Neagh and its catchment but beaches and bathing waters along the north coast. It concerns me greatly that there were 163 confirmed reports of blue-green algae from 78 unique locations across Northern Ireland as of 4 September, with the blooms being reported in two new locations since 28 August.

The thick layer of blue-green algae in and around fishing quays has disrupted the operation of commercial fisheries. The thick build-ups will also impact on recreational angling. The advice is to take extreme care when working and fishing around algae blooms. The Lough Neagh fisheries are an important part of the rural economy around Lough Neagh and must be protected in the long term. The closure of the eel fishery is an ongoing concern. While other fisheries have been able to continue, I am aware of the real impact on the eel fishery. What has happened is historic. Eel fishing is part of our culture and the heritage of the communities around the lough. I am working with representatives of the eel fishermen to see how my Department can support them, and we are doing that. It is important that the Department provides that support.

The issues have been reported on our TV screens yet again this summer. The historic termination of eel fishing must focus minds. I urge all Members of the Assembly to focus not on the next election, which many seem to be doing already, but on the next generation. I ask Members to look at the lough, look at what has been reported and realise that the status quo is not an option. The Programme for Government that was published a number of months ago is a contract with the people of Northern Ireland. There is a promise in that to protect Lough Neagh and the environment, and it must be fulfilled. The issue is fundamental to the Executive and these institutions, because politics is about leadership. We must be capable of following through on and taking the difficult decisions that are needed.

You cannot govern by sound bites, social media graphics and photo shoots. The time ahead for Lough Neagh is absolutely, fundamentally critical. This is the biggest test of the Executive since restoration. Ultimately the test is about who is up for governing and who is not. I am up for taking those difficult decisions, and, if they come to me from other Ministers such as the Infrastructure Minister, in relation to waste water infrastructure, I will not be found wanting in my support.

I am keen to work with people, and, as Minister, I am writing to all the party leaders, asking for a meeting with all the parties in this place to discuss any issues that they have and how we can work together with regard to this. Fundamentally, we have to work together and show the people of Northern Ireland that hope and delivery can come from this place. I am confident that they can, and I want to engage with people and find a way forward on this.

On the positives — I have said that I am hopeful that we can turn this around — the Lough Neagh report and action plan is under way. Some 14 of the actions have been completed, and 22 are under way. Some people ask me why I say that it will take decades to fix. It is important that, in all our discussions around this, we are firmly wedded to science and evidence. I have seen some stuff in recent weeks that makes me despair. The denial of science fundamentally undermines people's trust and confidence in politics. The people of Northern Ireland deserve better than for people to deny those issues. The sediment is full of phosphorus, and it will take about 40 years for that to be released. That is why I say that it will be decades in the fixing. However, we can make a start. We need to reduce the nutrients going into the lough. That is the fundamental issue: too much nutrient is going into the lough, but we can turn that around.

I have been talking about this in the last number of weeks, and I will outline it a bit more today. Fundamental decisions are coming down the road. I will set out what they are, and I am really looking forward to engaging with other political parties about what we can do to turn this around. We can do it, but people need to come together, work together and support me in that.

The first is environmental protection. If there was ever an example of why we needed an independent environmental protection agency years ago, this is it. All I need to do is list Lough Neagh, Mobuoy, the state of our precious landscapes such as the Mournes, the Sperrins and Belfast lough, and the ongoing declines in wildlife and biodiversity. It is important that we take action to strengthen environmental governance. People ask me what that looks like. That is why I asked an independent panel to look at it. It came back with an interim report in June, and, as part of that, it recommended an independent environmental protection agency. The final report is due in the next few weeks. I will take it to the Executive and look for support to strengthen environmental governance. The current situation is not sustainable. We are the only part of the UK and Ireland that does not have an independent environmental protection agency, and that cannot continue. How many more environmental disasters do we need to tell us that we need to establish it? The expert panels came back. They are doing a lot of good work, and we will get the final report and proceed on it.

The motion refers to the nutrients action programme. I was extremely disheartened that the Assembly supported the motion in June that called for me to withdraw the consultation. I was really disappointed at that. To me, consulting and getting people's views is a fundamental part of government. The consultation closed on 24 July, and I thank everyone who took the time to respond. There were 3,400 responses, so thank you to everyone who responded.

Further to that I have announced — people know this — that my intention is to set up a stakeholder group to through the responses and any other suggestions and find a way forward so that we can go to a further consultation and get final proposals agreed. The group consists of representatives from farming, agri-food, environmental groups and the Department. The group met informally for the first time on 27 August to discuss its remit. That was an extremely constructive meeting, and I record my profound thanks to people for coming round the table and wanting to focus on solutions. The leadership that has been shown by the Ulster Farmers' Union on this has been amazing. Agri-food wants to work together on it, and environmental NGOs also want to do that.

I ask people to put the politics aside, support the group, let them do the work, let them come together and bring forward proposals that we can get agreement on, so that we can find a way forward for nutrient management in Northern Ireland.

Fundamental to that is that we need to support farmers in Northern Ireland on that road. That is why I have met the Finance Minister and asked for a significant increase in the just transition fund for agriculture. What does that mean? It means that, for example, with the sustainable farm investment scheme, we are supporting technologies for farmers to use on the farm, which will reduce nutrients going into the lough and also deal with issues such as ammonia. I need the funding to support farmers in doing that. I also need funding for advisory support. There are four pillars around this: education, incentivisation, regulation and enforcement. I need the support so that we can have on-farm advisory support, and that is something that I am engaging with the Irish Government on because, frankly, we do not have an awful lot of money in Northern Ireland because of the UK economy situation. I will engage with the Irish Government, because the situation is clearly an all-Ireland situation, and good positive work can be done around that.

That is what I have outlined in relation to the nutrients action programme. I am committed to working with people. Some people have asked me, "Who is in the group? Who is not in the group? I want to be in the group." Everyone wants to be in the group, it seems, but I have to find a situation where we do not have too many people and we can actually make progress. I have made a decision today to finalise the membership of the group. It will include the Northern Ireland Food and Drink Association and the Rivers Trust. It is important that I include them. We will also set up a subgroup for science and research, and that will include AFBI and AgriSearch. I am committed to bringing people together, and we are working at the moment to get an external facilitator for it.

So good work is being done. People are providing leadership and coming together. We do not all agree. There will be a robust exchange of views, but let us come together and find a way forward. However, here is the rub: I am working night and day to deal with nutrient pollution from agriculture. The lack of action on waste water infrastructure is a major issue. Farmers see a situation where NI Water has a separate regulatory regime, it gets a special deal and permission to pollute, and farmers do not think that that is fair. I have been on the record before on that, and I will say it again: I agree. That needs to end, and I need support from the Executive to deal with it, because we cannot have a situation where one major corporate polluter is given a separate special deal. We also need credible proposals to deal with waste water and sewage pollution. I will support the Infrastructure Minister if she brings forward proposals in relation to that. Ultimately, we have to make a decision here whether we are prepared to govern or not. I am prepared to support action on this, but we have to deal with sewage pollution. It is about one quarter of the problem. It is not credible that I continue to work with farmers and agri-food but that we do not see progress on that, and we have a separate regulatory regime.

The other issue is climate change. We have had the warmest summer on record. Is that not a clear indication that the issues that we have seen in Lough Neagh are related to climate change? I am very clear that climate change is the biggest challenge of our time, and it is having real impacts on our society, particularly in relation to Lough Neagh. To deny the reality of climate change is mad. To be honest, we would be much better off signing up to science and evidence than to Nigel Farage. As far as I am concerned, I will continue to take action on climate change and will continue to seek support for that action, because we owe it to communities around Northern Ireland. It is not optional; it is a must. We must take climate action. There is legislation, but there is also an imperative. It would be crazy that we would not invest in renewable energy, for example, and expose people to the price fluctuations as a result of dictatorships that own fossil fuels and subject people to the perils of fuel poverty.

The last issue, which people have talked about, is fines and reviewing those. We are considering a fisheries and water environment Bill. We will go out and consult further on that. We have done stakeholder engagement, and we need to have a proper regime in place for regulation and enforcement. We will consult on that Bill. There will be consultation, and we have done stakeholder engagement. If I see a motion back here saying, "Pull the consultation", I will despair. All that I am asking is for people to give us their view on the Bill so that we can have stronger regulation and enforcement. I do not think that the situation at the moment is right. Some of the fines are pitiful, and some of the prosecutions are not taking place. We need to deal with that. It would be much better if the pollution did not take place in the first place, so that is why we are focusing on education and incentivisation, and I thank the Irish Government for their engagement around supporting us with that.

In conclusion, there is hope, but difficult decisions will be required. A lot of the time, this place is known for telling people what they want to hear rather than for taking the tough decisions and doing so together. I have hope and an ambition, and it is for other people to decide whether it happens. It is that we can go to the shores of Lough Neagh next year. I am not saying that the situation will have been fixed or that we will not see a repeat of the scenes. Rather, I am saying that we will have taken the difficult decisions and that there will be real action. There are no quick fixes. There have been decades of neglect, and the situation cannot be turned around quickly, but it is important that we take the difficult decisions in order to address it.

I commend everyone who has engaged with me thus far. I look forward to engaging with party leaders in the time ahead. We hope to be able to make progress. What has happened in recent months is an abdication of leadership. We need to draw a line in the sand, and we need to say to people that we are prepared to take difficult decisions and are prepared to move forward.

Mr Speaker: I call Daniel McCrossan to make a winding-up speech on the motion. You have up to 10 minutes, Mr McCrossan.

Mr McCrossan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This was a fascinating debate. Not only did some Members manage to sectarianise it by labelling farmers under their religion but we had the Gospel cited. Nigel Farage also made an appearance. There has therefore been quite a mixture of opinions shared today.

Let me be clear from the outset, however, that what is happening at Lough Neagh is nothing short of an environmental disaster. It is an emergency that has been years in the making, caused by weak enforcement, failed leadership and an Executive who are more interested in managing headlines than fixing the problems that we face. Some Executive parties come before the cameras promising everything, particularly in the run-up to an election. They talk about the urgency of fixing Lough Neagh, the responsibility that needs to be taken and the leadership that must be shown, Then, when the election dust has settled, they walk through the doors of the Chamber and look the other way. They vote against and attempt to block consultations that will allow feedback to go to the Minister and the Department to make an informed decision about the appropriate way forward. They choose politics and virtue signalling over the environment and scaremongering and Trump's fake news over fact. That is the reality of how the Executive function.

Indeed, the DUP talked about farmers for a fair bit of the debate. All of us recognise the vital role that farmers play in each and all our communities. Let me be clear, however, that it was the DUP that stoked farmers' tensions and wound them up to the hilt about the consultation, so much so that a lot of the things that were said were not wholly accurate. The consultation has gone ahead, however, and the Minister was right to ignore the petty politicking of some parties in the House.

Let me reaffirm something as an MLA for a rural constituency: farmers are the backbone of our rural economy and our rural community. They face massive challenges, and absolutely do since the bonkers Brexit that the DUP supported. They deserve support and fairness, but they also deserve honesty from the DUP, which they are not getting. They also know, perhaps better than anyone, that a poisoned Lough Neagh helps no one. Farmers understand that sustainability is the only way in which to ensure that the next generation can continue to work and live off the land.

It is not just a failure of the farming community but a multifaceted, complex mess in which many people have contributed to the disastrous situation. It is therefore not about pointing the finger at farmers, or even at NI Water, but about taking action to resolve the crisis. The crisis is not theoretical. It is not distant. The crisis is choking the largest freshwater lake on these islands with toxic blue-green algae. It is human-induced blue-green algae. Fisheries have been forced to close, tourism businesses are collapsing and families are being told not to swim in what was once a beautiful lough, not to walk dogs near it and not to touch the water. Wildlife is being wiped out. This is real. It is happening, and, unless the Executive wise up and take action, it will be their legacy for future generations to learn about.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr McCrossan: I will not. I have a lot to get through.

Yet what do some Executive parties do in the face of that? The DUP, Sinn Féin and the UUP lined up to vote against the nutrients action programme consultation. Let us be crystal clear: it was a consultation, and anyone who does not understand the definition of a consultation should not be in the House. It was not a law. It was not a regulation. It was not a policy. It was a chance for farmers, communities, scientists, business owners and everybody to have their say. What is so terrifying about listening to people, something that some parties do not do well?

What is so threatening about consultation? Yet instead of engaging, Sinn Féin tripped over themselves to get into the Lobby with the DUP and UUP to collapse that process. That was not just a mistake; that was a shameful misjudgement, particularly given that the First Minister lives in the constituency that is directly affected by it. That was a major betrayal of the public, who depend on us to show leadership. While the virtue signalling continued, the Sinn Féin Infrastructure Department is content to stand back while raw sewage continues to flow into the lough. Eighteen months after the return of the Assembly, we have had no solutions or any plan put forward. That is not acceptable; it is indefensible. It shows the wider failure of an Executive who refuse to act as one, refuse to govern with urgency and refuse to face up to their responsibilities.

Delay is not neutral. Every week that we wait, the algae spread further; every year that we delay, the damage deepens. This is not a short-term inconvenience. If Lough Neagh collapses, it will be a generational catastrophe that this Executive have done very little about. Jobs, tourism, wildlife, heritage and livelihoods will be destroyed. The question to the Executive parties is simple: do you want to be remembered as the Executive who sat back while the UK and Ireland's largest lake died before our eyes or do you want to be remembered as the Executive who took responsibility, took the tough decisions, showed courage and saved it? For the SDLP's part, we will not stand quietly back while others play politics with something so precious. We will not allow Sinn Féin, the DUP and the UUP to pretend that they are acting in the public interest while they look and vote the other way.

The House and the Executive should be demanding immediate action from the Department for Infrastructure and the Minister to stop sewage flowing into the lough. That is an action within the gift of power of Sinn Féin and the First Minister, because today, after this debate, the First Minister can go and ask her Sinn Féin Finance Minister to fund her Infrastructure Minister for NI Water. That is a good starting point. Take action. Do not just speak about it, do something. Also, while that conversation is happening, please tell Minister O'Dowd to respond to the call by Minister Muir to fund his Department to resolve this problem. Sticking plasters will not work. We also need proper sanctions in place that will deter polluters and ensure diligence at all times when they are on their land or when NI Water is instructed to stop pumping sewage into that lough.

Colleagues, this is not about left or right, unionist or nationalist, as some would have you believe. This is about whether a Government work; this is about whether they fail. Right now, on Lough Neagh, the Executive are failing miserably. I say it again: no more promises by Ministers in front of the cameras or in the Assembly, no more hollow words and no more excuses. If you have committed in your manifestos to solving this problem, you need to do something about it. As the Opposition, we are going to ensure that your feet are held firmly to the fire in that regard.

What is happening in Lough Neagh is unforgivable. People can dress it up in whatever way they like. I must say that Mr Buckley gave a first-class performance. If the Assembly ever collapses again, he will not even need to apply to the West End. He is guaranteed a job in the London Palladium for what he did here earlier.

Mr Buckley: Will I get a reference from you?

Mr McCrossan: I will give you a reference.

We need to act now to deal with this very serious crisis. People are counting on us. It is not just about those who are contributing to the problem; it is about the wider impact that it is having on all our communities. That has been referenced here today. People cannot live in their homes. My God, is that acceptable in today's age? No, it is not. We can all take steps to resolve the problem. I implore the Executive to work together, use the powers and functions that they have within their control and resolve the problem now, before it is too late.

Mr Speaker: I ask Members to take their ease before we move to the Adjournment debate.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): In conjunction with the Business Committee, the Speaker has given leave to Diane Dodds to raise the matter of the future of services at the South West Acute Hospital (SWAH). Before I call Diane, I welcome everybody in the Public Gallery. Thank you for coming to the Northern Ireland Assembly tonight. I realise that many of you have travelled a long way and the debate is probably slightly later than you expected it to be. However, I say welcome. This is your Assembly. I am glad to see that you are here.

Diane, will you open up the debate? You have up to 15 minutes. Over to you.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I echo your words and welcome everyone from Fermanagh today. It is a long way up the road, but we will discuss a lot of long journeys as we go through the debate and try to make some progress. At the outset of the debate, I just want to say that my colleague Deborah is extremely disappointed that she is unable to be here. She is a passionate advocate for Fermanagh and South Tyrone and the South West Acute Hospital. I am sure that we wish her all the best at this difficult time.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mrs Dodds: I spoke to Deborah today. She wanted me to put on record her thanks for the way in which she has been treated. She is very grateful for all the work of the local community midwife right through to the hospital consultants. It just shows that while, sometimes in the House — the Minister will smile when I say this — we focus on the things that are wrong, really need to be fixed or are urgent, there are everyday people doing tremendous work in our hospitals.

Emergency general surgery at the SWAH is not just a local issue; it is a regional one. It is an issue that has deep significance for how we transform our services and the basis on which we proceed. For families in Fermanagh, the South West Acute Hospital is not just another hospital option; it is the only acute hospital that is accessible within a reasonable time frame. Anyone who knows the geography of that most westerly part of Northern Ireland knows that travel time from somewhere like Rosslea to Altnagelvin Area Hospital is almost two hours. For people in Fermanagh, distances are long, roads are challenging and alternatives are not as feasible as they are for people in urban areas. That is the stark reality of rural healthcare.

As if that were not enough, the Western Trust is proposing a permanent hospital service change based on the premise that the current arrangements at Altnagelvin are suitable and coping well. They are not. On 28 August 2025, the Royal College of Emergency Medicine released figures for emergency waiting times that show that patients in the emergency department (ED) at Altnagelvin wait between 19 hours and 89 hours. That is four days before admission to a hospital bed. At this stage, we should acknowledge that Altnagelvin hospital is also under huge pressure.

Minister, you often talk about health inequalities, and rightly so. I hope that we are not insisting on creating another health inequality for rural communities in Fermanagh and, indeed, the general population of the west of Northern Ireland. Rurality needs to be taken into account in the design of services and, indeed, the transformation of our services.

It is a fact that we desperately need transformation of health services in Northern Ireland, but, in this case, we are trying to transform services on the back of collapse and a lack of consultation with local people. Indeed, concern about the consultation on emergency general surgery (EGS) at the SWAH has been expressed not just by local communities and political representatives but by the Patient and Client Council, which was set up to represent and express the needs of patients in local areas.

The temporary removal of emergency general surgery from the SWAH in December 2022 was brought about by an unplanned collapse in services. Many, myself included, argue that that situation was compounded by the fact that, in June 2022, the former Health Minister, Robin Swann, had published the review of general surgery in Northern Ireland, which established standards that hospitals must meet to continue to provide elective and emergency general surgery. SWAH could not meet those standards and therefore could not recruit, which led to a further crisis in staffing at the hospital.

The Western Trust is completing a consultation on the closure of emergency general surgery at the SWAH. At the same time as that process has been going on, the Department of Health and you, Minister, have been consulting on a hospital network plan. That consultation was launched in October 2024 — I looked at the date today; I think that it was 1 October 2024 — but we have yet to hear the outcome of the process. Are you, Minister, still pressing ahead with the hospital network plan to change the SWAH into a general hospital? Eleven months after the publication of the plan, we still have no clear indication of the services that will be under SWAH's roof in future or of what your plan is likely to look like.

In the middle of all that, Minister, you intervened via the local newspaper, which I have huge respect for — my father-in-law used to write copious letters to it every week; you are laughing, but it is true — to ask for a sustainability plan for the SWAH. There was no communication with elected representatives, despite the fact that Deborah Erskine and others were in direct communication with you before that intervention. Many viewed it as positive, but people in Fermanagh rightly want to know how these three processes — the consultation on emergency general surgery, the hospital network plan and the sustainability plan — correlate and work together. Which will come first: a decision on emergency general surgery or the reconfiguration decision? Minister, so many people have travelled from Fermanagh today, and others are listening to the debate. I hope that you have the answers that the community in Fermanagh so keenly await. They deserve to know what health services will be provided for them in that part of Northern Ireland.

I will quickly look at another key report on the removal of emergency general surgery at the SWAH. The Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA) report expressed concern about ambulance waiting times — patients triaged at the SWAH may need to be blue-lighted to Altnagelvin or elsewhere — and about the use of private ambulances, which are not regulated. Double ED waits, for patients waiting in Enniskillen and then facing another wait at Altnagelvin, were also identified as a problem. I outlined the extent of those waits earlier in my contribution. I asked the people who put together the RQIA report, "If we are looking at doing something about emergency general surgery at the SWAH and taking that to Altnagelvin, why were these processes not ironed out before this was decided?". Today, we need to know whether the processes have been improved. We need to know why it has taken so long to identify them. Is the system now more efficient? The Western Trust officials who briefed the Health Committee would like to tell us that it is, but many of the testimonies from those who have experienced the trust's services do not indicate that that is the case. Those are really important issues that our community in Fermanagh deserves to know about.

Many people from the local Fermanagh community have joined together to express concern about healthcare provision in the area. I have heard my colleague Deborah Erskine talk many times about issues with Community Pharmacy and accessing GPs and the difficulties that there are in bringing everything together. Save Our Acute Services (SOAS) is a local campaign group that has produced a road map that could be considered for the SWAH. Minister, we are keen to know whether any of the recommendations in that road map will be considered.

Members of the local business community have also expressed their concern. They are local employers, who point out that the provision of services is key to attracting the right workforce and to achieving a regionally balanced economy. That is something that we very often talk about in the Chamber. They are calling for a proper conversation to be had on healthcare provision in Fermanagh.

Minister, we are all concerned about waiting times, but the reality is that two brand-new operating theatres for the SWAH have never been commissioned. Will the SWAH now receive fair funding from the elective care framework and be able to take its rightful place in the drive to increase elective surgery and to drive down waiting times? All five theatres and 312 beds should be used in the mission to eliminate the scandalous waiting times in Northern Ireland. That matters to all of us.

This is an important debate for constituents in Fermanagh, but it is also an important one for all of us in Northern Ireland. The number of consultations that we have ongoing, the interventions that we have made and the clear lack of a process that a community can follow or even feel involved in point almost to a dysfunction in how we operate services for people in Northern Ireland. The South West Acute Hospital is a fabulous facility. It is delivering vital healthcare to one of the most rural populations in Northern Ireland, and there should be a proper process for, and a proper level of, access to healthcare for all in Fermanagh. That includes sustaining services and outlining what they should be for the hospital, and those services should include emergency general surgery.

Minister, you have an opportunity to clarify the situation today. There are many people listening to the debate and waiting to hear about the way forward. I hope that you will take cognisance of rural populations in order to deliver appropriate services that are appropriately staffed. Safe, sustainable services are not an outrageous demand. They are something that our population — in this case, rural communities — deserves and should have.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much, Diane. I remind the remaining contributors that they will have approximately seven minutes in which to speak.

Ms Murphy: I wish my constituency colleague Deborah Erskine and her husband all the very best as they prepare to welcome their new arrival in the coming weeks. I welcome the members of the emergency services who have joined us here this evening.

When emergency general surgery was first suspended in December 2022, the Western Trust said that it was a temporary suspension. In the months and years since, however, the actions of the trust, or the lack of action in some cases, have given a very different impression. The recruitment of surgical consultants on "trust-wide contracts" indicated that the suspension was being viewed as anything but temporary.

Since then, the Western Trust has shattered public trust, ignored repeated calls for increased community engagement and failed to develop a road map or any clear vision in relation to the reinstatement of emergency general surgery. That, in itself, is an indictment of how the issue has been mismanaged to date.

Recently, of course, we had the extraordinary and deeply troubling situation when the Health Minister had to ask the Western Trust to pause the consultation due to ongoing concerns regarding the credibility of the process itself — an intervention from the Minister that I want to welcome and have welcomed.

My Sinn Féin colleagues and I have consistently made the case from day 1 that there is a fundamental difference between service transformation and service collapse. True transformation must be rooted in partnership, co-design, a clear road map and a vision for services. What has occurred to date does not resemble transformation at all but is, in fact, a hollowing out of services that has left patients, families and front-line staff in limbo. Rural patients are, of course, entitled to the same level of care as is available anywhere else on this island; yet, today, we have patients in Fermanagh who face a drive of over two hours to Altnagelvin to access emergency general surgery. That is not equitable; it is not safe; and it falls short of the principle of healthcare parity.

If we are talking about genuine healthcare transformation, as many of us have done in the Chamber over recent years and recent months, we need to be ambitious. That means looking at services on an island-wide basis, where services are planned, funded and delivered on the basis of patient need. We have already seen how resources can be shared on a cross-border basis to the benefit of all patients, such as cardiac services in Derry and cancer care in Dublin. Expanding that cooperation will help to ensure that rural communities in Fermanagh and Tyrone are not left behind but, instead, will benefit from the full-scale capacity of an all-island health system.

SWAH has incredible potential. Its geographical location places it in a position to treat patients from across the north-west region of Ireland. Fully commissioning unused theatre space and additional bed capacity needs to be and should be explored. Our community has invested in SWAH. The people of Fermanagh campaigned for it. They cherish it, and they depend on it. The RQIA and constituents have rightly highlighted outstanding issues with patient pathway, double ED waits and delayed transfers. There is a raft of outstanding issues that still have to be addressed.

The recent pause that the trust has taken must focus minds. For far too long, the trust has taken a haphazard approach, and it is past time that the voices of front-line staff, patients and the community are listened to and respected by the trust. It is past time that confidence is rebuilt and past time that services are restored.

Ms D Armstrong: First, I join others in sending my best regards to my constituency colleague Deborah Erskine. Welcoming a new child into the family is precious, and I sincerely hope that she experiences a really healthy and happy remainder of her pregnancy.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on future services at South West Acute Hospital, an issue that goes to the very heart of healthcare in Fermanagh and Tyrone and, indeed, across the region. The South West Acute Hospital is one of the most modern and well-designed facilities anywhere in Northern Ireland. Purpose-built, state-of-the-art and deliberately built with the long term in mind, it remains a hospital with enormous potential.

Too often, in our wider public-sector estate, we talk about crumbling buildings or outdated infrastructure. As the Minister has seen with his own eyes on many occasions, the SWAH is different: it is a hospital that still has the space, equipment and flexibility to provide world-class care. That is why I look forward to the trust and the Minister coming forward with further proposals for even greater utilisation.

I know that the Minister has specifically identified the uncommissioned theatre capacity as an opportunity that he expects to see utilised. The hospital has lots of potential to do more. Thanks to the efforts of the Minister, levels of elective activity in the SWAH have never been as significant as they are now.

Of course, a hospital is never just a building. A hospital's greatest strength is its workforce. The support staff, doctors, nurses, midwives and allied healthcare professionals (AHPs) who dedicate themselves every day to caring for patients are the backbone of those institutions, and we owe them our gratitude. They are skilled and resilient, and they deserve our admiration and, most important, our support.

Understandably, there is a lot of concern about the future of SWAH and the services that it provides. The trust's initial decision in 2022 to temporarily suspend emergency general surgery in response to staffing challenges left a number of unanswered questions and concerns. It did not help that, whilst commitments were given at that time, particularly in relation to the pathways, regrettably, not all of those commitments were properly delivered upon. That is why the RQIA review ordered by Robin Swann last year was an important step forward.

I expect that I am not alone among the MLAs from Fermanagh and South Tyrone in having received harrowing accounts of the experiences of some patients. I pay tribute to the various local campaigners in the Gallery today — you are welcome — who have asked patients to come forward to relay those lived experiences. I also pay tribute to SOAS for the production of its road map, a set of proposals that could be part of the solution.

It is important that other critical voices, such as that of the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service (NIAS), are heard and listened to in this space. Whilst the RQIA report earlier this year made recommendations for action that, I was pleased to see, were all accepted, there is still scope to make further improvements. The pathways are still challenging, and double ED waits still happen. It should have been obvious to absolutely everyone, therefore, that another consultation would need to be handled more carefully, sensitively and diligently. Unfortunately, what the trust presented us with in early July was the exact opposite of that. Instead of building confidence, it eroded it, and, instead of empowering staff and communities, it alienated them. A case in point was its decision to hold only one public engagement event and to do so in the middle of the Twelfth fortnight. All of those obvious blunders have had real consequences and left the local community even more anxious and frustrated.

In the eyes of many, the overall process in early summer was not a genuine attempt at engagement but a box-ticking exercise. That is not how healthcare planning should be done. That is why I welcomed the Minister's highly unusual but important intervention on 16 July. His request for a vision plan must be the starting point for a serious strategic conversation about how to restore confidence and clearly set out the role that the hospital hopes to play in years to come.

SWAH is an incredible hospital. It is a facility that has huge potential to meet local and regional needs. The trust needs to grasp the current opportunity. That is the type of vision that the public want to see, that the staff deserve and that patients need to see. Moreover, it is what local rural residents need. I genuinely hope that the Western Trust can provide the requested vision plan. As an MLA, I stand ready and willing to help in any way that I can.

Let me be clear: the South West Acute Hospital is not a problem to be solved but an opportunity to be embraced. With its facilities, its dedicated workforce and its entirely loyal community, it has a long and secure future ahead of it. As public representatives, it is our responsibility to make sure that that future is secured for everyone in Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Thank you.

Mr McCrossan: I echo the words of colleagues across the House and offer best wishes, on behalf of the SDLP, to Deborah Erskine and her husband on what, I hope, in a few days' or weeks' time, will be a very positive news story. I wish her well on that journey. I also welcome our friends from Fermanagh and Tyrone who are in the Gallery. You are welcome in the Assembly. Remember that this is your Assembly and that you have helped to bring about today's important discussion.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate on the future of this important hospital. To be clear, the SWAH is not just another hospital; it is a lifeline for rural communities across my constituency of West Tyrone, across Fermanagh and, of course, across the rest of Tyrone. It is also a lifeline for parts of Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan. Many people receive important treatment in that vital facility.

At a cost of £276 million when it was first built in 2012 and with single en suite rooms for every patient, it is a state-of-the art facility that was opened barely a decade ago. It is shocking that we are discussing its future when its build is so new. To allow it to be hollowed out, downgraded or —.

Mr Clarke: Will the Member give way?

Mr McCrossan: I will give way.

Mr Clarke: The Member may wonder why a Member for South Antrim is here for the debate. I am here because the issue has an impact not only on the west of the Province but on all of the Province. I am sure that the Member will agree with me about that impact. If people are not in the SWAH, they are coming to the east of the Province or to the north of the Province. It has implications for the delivery of healthcare across the Province, and I am sure that the Member will agree with that.

Mr McCrossan: Absolutely

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Daniel, you have an extra minute.

Mr McCrossan: Thank you, Deputy Speaker.

I appreciate Mr Clarke's intervention, and he is right: any action that is taken on the SWAH will have a consequence on other health facilities throughout Northern Ireland. We already see that play out particularly in Altnagelvin. I use that as a reference, because it is my closest hospital, and I have seen the huge crisis that it faces when dealing with the demand on its services.

In December 2022, the Western Trust suspended emergency general surgery at SWAH. We were told that that was a temporary move, but, unfortunately, it has now dragged on for almost three years. We are now told that it will become permanent, which has come as a great disappointment to so many people. Patients in urgent need of surgery must travel two and a half hours to Altnagelvin or, as Mr Clarke referenced, to other medical facilities. That is not just inconvenient but unsafe, and it defies National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance, which requires a 45-minute response to major trauma. If those travelling to Altnagelvin were to leave from Belleek today or from any part of Fermanagh for that matter, they would have to travel down that treacherous A5. Already quite stressed and maybe not able to get access to an ambulance because of the demand on that service, they would have to navigate difficult road conditions. When you put the full picture together, you see that it is complex and extremely frustrating and worrying for those who are concerned about their loved ones in that emergency situation. To be clear, the human cost is real, and the removal of services from rural communities is being felt acutely in places such as Fermanagh and Tyrone.

There are a number of examples that I could use. There is a gentleman who has spent six months in hospital after being shuttled between those two hospitals. A young mother was traumatised after being forced to leave a newborn baby to travel to Altnagelvin from Fermanagh on a number of occasions. Another gentleman in his 50s was wrongly treated, and, unfortunately, during the transfer, his health and life were endangered. Those are not just statistics; they are real-life examples of the real-life effects of what is happening. They involve families whose lives will never be the same.

The trust claims that patients can be safely transferred, yet even the RQIA has criticised the so-called double ED process, where Fermanagh patients present at SWAH only to be sent on to other hospitals such as Altnagelvin. Altnagelvin, to be clear, is an absolute crisis zone at the best of times. There are no quiet moments any more. There are no winter pressures: there are all-year, 24-hour, seven-day-a-week pressures in our emergency departments. It is inhumane of us to ask our healthcare staff to work in such a crisis-filled area where they are supposed to be treating patients with dignity. I can safely say from what I have witnessed in emergency departments that there is little dignity there at present, unfortunately.

It is clear that the emergency department at Altnagelvin is in crisis. The Minister has recognised that there is an issue there — he has committed to looking at it in various pieces of correspondence with me and other MLAs — but it is unacceptable and needs to be dealt with. Patients wait for days. We used to say that it was hours and find that unacceptable, but patients wait for days on hard seats and sometimes wait days for a bed. Families are left in limbo, and staff, as I said, are stretched to breaking point. Altnagelvin is not a safe alternative for SWAH patients, certainly not for those in trauma situations where minutes literally matter. Ambulance cover is stretched, with category-2 response times averaging 68 minutes against a 15-minute target. Geography makes the risk even greater. The journey from Newtownbutler to Altnagelvin takes two and a half hours. That is the difference between life and death, quite literally. That is why SWAH must be treated as a rural hospital with a trauma lens applied.

The debate is not just about emergency surgery but about the future of SWAH itself. The hospital has two operating theatres, as colleagues have pointed out, with 92 en suite rooms that have never been properly or fully commissioned.

With investment and a clear plan, the SWAH could be a hub for elective surgery, cutting the waiting lists in Northern Ireland, which are the longest in the UK, while retaining emergency surgical capacity for its rural population.

I welcome, and very much appreciate, the Minister's recent intervention. The Minister always speaks his mind, which is what I respect about Minister Nesbitt, who has a difficult job. However, we cannot allow the future of the SWAH to drift. Where trusts are failing, the Minister needs to intervene now. Thousands of people have marched and attended meetings, and cross-community support has been secured. The message from Fermanagh and Tyrone is clear: save this service now. Let us be clear: the Western Trust does not start and stop in Derry. It has a huge rural catchment area, and it is under immense pressure. We need to do more to ensure that our rural communities have access to those vital services.

The people in the Gallery are the reason that we are having this debate today. If the SWAH is saved — I hope that it will be, Minister — it will have been down to the work of those people. They have worked tirelessly for the past number of years to raise the important challenges that are faced. They are defending and fighting for every single citizen in Tyrone and Fermanagh.

Miss Dolan: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the future of services at South West Acute Hospital. I, too, thank my colleague Deborah Erskine for securing today's Adjournment debate. I wish her and her husband, Robert, all the best with their imminent new arrival. I also extend my thanks to the Minister and the members of SOAS for joining us for this important discussion this evening.

For the people of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, the SWAH is not just a hospital; it is a lifeline. The SWAH provides essential services to families and patients who would otherwise face long and difficult journeys to receive the care that others in the region take for granted. That is why the future of services at the SWAH must be safeguarded, strengthened and invested in.

I will touch on a number of the vital services that are provided in our hospital. First, emergency general surgery is not an optional service; it is a vital, life-saving provision. A viable, resilient health network demands that EGS returns to the SWAH. As others have said, since December 2022, emergency general surgery at the SWAH has been suspended. The suspension was initially described as temporary, yet the Western Trust advanced a public consultation that risks making it permanent. That was not a consultation in any meaningful sense and was fundamentally flawed — so much so that the Health Minister stepped in to advise the trust to pause it. Since then, there has been radio silence from the Western Trust. There has been a failure to engage properly with the people of Fermanagh and Tyrone, which ignores the urgent needs of those who rely on the SWAH in emergencies, and no credible plan for service restoration. Support for that view is growing, with groups like the GAA, businesses and hoteliers declaring the process as deeply flawed and lacking legitimacy. We will continue to hold the trust and the Department of Health accountable for the process.

Now, rather than talking about what the Western Trust is trying to take away, let us celebrate and try to build on what we already have. As most of you know, I gave birth to a baby girl in March last year, and I was so proud to have her in the SWAH. I can say, with my hand on my heart, that I received the best care and attention during my entire journey, and I will be eternally grateful to every single staff member who I encountered. Bringing a child into the world should be one of the most joyous occasions in the life of a family, but it is also one of the most vulnerable. For that reason, I sought assurances from the trust on several occasions that there are no threats to maternity services at the SWAH. On each of those occasions, the trust has confirmed that it remains entirely committed to having a full maternity provision at the hospital.

Equally, stroke care is an area in which minutes can mean the difference between life and death or recovery and lifelong disability. Thankfully, the stroke unit at the SWAH is renowned as top class. Although the 2019 consultation on reshaping stroke care threatened it, the staff at the stroke unit are still punching above their weight. The unit received A and B results from a sentinel stroke national audit programme — SSNAP — audit, and, in 2023, it was deemed the best stroke unit in the North.

We all know the pressures facing the health service, and one of those serious pressure points is A&E. The A&E department at the SWAH is a type-1, consultant-led unit that provides 24/7 urgent care in our area. It is important that everyone knows that, although emergency general surgery has been temporarily removed from the hospital, the A&E is still fully functional. Yes, it is under pressure, and you should not attend unless it is a medical emergency. Despite that, the nurses, doctors and support staff there demonstrate professionalism, dedication and compassion every day.

The future of services at the SWAH is a litmus test, a strategic investment in the health, social and economic infrastructure of the west. It has the potential to contribute so much more than it currently does to our health service, North and South, across all disciplines. If we build the SWAH's surgical and medical capacity, it will solidify its position for the future. Our communities deserve safe, local and high-quality care. The SWAH must remain a hospital that not only survives but thrives, and it must be equipped to provide the services that our families and patients so urgently need and deserve.

Mr Gildernew: Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh gach duine anseo anocht.

It is great to see the strength of feeling in the people of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, as is reflected in the attendance of so many people who have travelled so far to be here. I would also like to join my colleagues in wishing Deborah, her husband and her new baby, all the very best in the time ahead, and our thoughts are certainly with them.

As local representatives, we can clearly see the strength of feeling that exists in our community about the ongoing issues at the SWAH. We are now approaching the three-year anniversary of the collapse of emergency general surgery, and it is important to reiterate that it was an unplanned collapse of a service, as opposed to any type of planned transformation.

I have met SOAS representatives on a number of occasions, and I acknowledge their dedication and commitment to seeing emergency general surgery restored to the South West Acute Hospital. I also thank and acknowledge the very many patients, community groups, business leaders and constituents who have contacted me and shared their experiences with me and other colleagues on this issue.

A very concerning picture has emerged of patients having to travel, sometimes up to and over two hours, to Altnagelvin in Derry, only to be told that they must join the back of the queue again, thereby enduring the notorious double wait. We all know the issues that are facing many of our EDs, with media reports regularly shining a spotlight on the grim reality of people languishing in pain for hours on end, sometimes without even the dignity of a hospital trolley, as well as pressure on healthcare staff and the moral hazard that they experience day and daily.

Patients in Fermanagh and the surrounding areas fully deserve to have equal access to life-saving healthcare, and the Minister should be doing everything in his power to make it a reality. I reflect on what Trevor said earlier, and I fully agree that we absolutely have to look at this in the bigger picture. I have heard, at times, reference to Manchester models and London models in relation to the South West Acute Hospital. The reality is that we are not tasked with providing services to that type of demographic, and we have to design services for the demographic that we have. It is as simple as that, and we have to make it fair, equal and world leading.

The hospital in Enniskillen was hard fought for, and I recall the battle to get that hospital there to serve the people of our area. It is undoubtedly one of the best healthcare facilities on this island. That is not disputed. However, it has never been allowed to reach its full potential. That is not a reflection in any way whatsoever on the excellent care that the staff provide at the SWAH, despite all the challenges. The staff deserve better also. Neither the Western Trust nor the Minister has taken responsibility for allowing the situation to develop in the first place or for providing solutions. The attitude of the Western Trust has been unhelpful. From day 1, it has taken a head-in-the-sand approach and has seemed unwilling to take seriously the concerns that have been raised by so many in our community. We saw that very clearly in its approach to the consultation over the summer, which was so poor that it had to be abandoned. The decision to hold only one consultation event, with a limited number of places available, was always bound to cause upset and outrage. The decision by the Minister — I welcome his attendance at the debate — to intervene and pause the consultation was very much the right one and very welcome.

What we need to see now is a straightforward way in which we can ensure the future sustainability of the South West Acute Hospital for many years to come. We urgently need to see cross-border links being developed, as was initially planned for the South West Acute Hospital. We are constantly told that the population within the catchment of the hospital is not big enough to sustain the current level of front-line services, but those responsible for planning services continue to ignore and isolate the hospital from its natural hinterland counties of Cavan, Leitrim, Monaghan and Donegal. There are strong precedents for cross-border cooperation between North and South. For example, the North West Cancer Centre in Derry and the All-Ireland Paediatric Cardiology Service, which I have visited. Both have been a massive success. They are models that need to be built upon, at pace, across the island.

Finally, we now need to see a proper, respectful, inclusive and productive co-production and co-design process being put in place to allow the people of Fermanagh and Tyrone to engage on the basis of fairness and equality, to have a meaningful say in the health services that are being provided for the people of our constituency, and to ensure that those services are providing first-class health and emergency care for all. I will conclude my remarks there. I thank colleagues for taking part in the debate today.

Mr T Buchanan: I also welcome the people from Fermanagh and thank them for coming today. I know something of the journey that you have to make when you come to Stormont. We are glad to see you. I also pass on my best wishes to my colleague Deborah. I wish her the best in the days to come.

Given the nature of the debate and the wide-ranging aspect of it, it is somewhat disappointing that we do not have anyone from the Alliance Party or the TUV in the Chamber to take part in the debate.

I rise to express my deep concern and disappointment at the temporary removal of emergency general surgery from the South West Acute Hospital. That decision has significant implications for the health and well-being of our community, particularly for those who rely on emergency surgical services. Given the wide, vast rural area that it is, it is of deep concern that those services have been temporarily removed and have not been returned yet to the SWAH. The SWAH services a large rural population right across the constituencies of Fermanagh and South Tyrone and West Tyrone. The hospital's emergency department is a vital lifeline for many, providing critical care and treatment in times of greatest need. However, the removal of emergency general surgery services undermines the hospital's ability to provide comprehensive care for the patients in that large rural community. The decision to temporarily remove the services was a result of staff shortages or other operational challenges. However, such a decision should not have been taken without, first of all, a clear plan being put in place to mitigate the impact on patients and the local community. The people in the south-west quarter of Northern Ireland who are serviced by the South West Acute Hospital deserve much better than that. They deserve a healthcare system that is reliable, accessible and of the highest quality. The temporary removal of that vital service falls far short of that standard.

I urge the Health Minister, who I appreciate has an extremely difficult job to do, not only to review the decision but to work with the Western Trust and the hospital management to have the emergency general surgery restored as soon as possible. I also call on him to ensure that a comprehensive plan is put in place so that patients receive the care that they require without undue delay. We have heard today from other Members about the extra travel time for patients and the detrimental consequences that that can have for them and their health. Therefore, we cannot allow this situation to continue. As elected representatives representing rural constituencies, we cannot allow the situation to continue.

Minister, the decision highlights the need for a long-term strategic plan to address the staffing shortages and operational challenges that are facing our health system today. We need a sustainable solution that prioritises the needs of the patients and ensures that our hospitals are fully equipped to provide and deliver high-quality care.

I remember back to 2009, when the work on the South West Acute Hospital began, and 26 June 2012, when it opened.

Prior to that work commencing, there were, for a few years, discussions about the delivery of acute services in the west of the Province, what those would look like and how they would be developed.

At that time, we were given assurance after assurance and guarantee after guarantee in meetings that the South West Acute Hospital would be a fully acute, fully equipped hospital that would work across the trust with the hospital in Omagh and the hospital at Altnagelvin and that it would be utilised to its full potential in order to deliver the best quality of service for the people in the area. To date, however, two theatres have still not been utilised. The hospitals in Enniskillen and Omagh have not been allowed to achieve their full potential. That is a retrograde step and something that the trust has allowed to happen instead of seeking to get people in —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I ask the Member to draw his remarks to a close. Unfortunately, we did not start the clock at the right time. Mr Buchanan, you have reached the time limit as agreed by your Chief Whip, and, regrettably, I am unable to allow Alan to come in. We have one other Member to speak, and we need to get the Minister in before the end.

Mr T Buchanan: OK. Sorry. Our only other concern is that we must fight to keep the hospital's fully acute status. There was a problem some time back with the neonatal unit, and we had to fight to keep that unit in the hospital and —.

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

Mr McGrath: I welcome the opportunity to talk on this important issue. I thank Deborah for securing the Adjournment debate and wish her all the best in the days, weeks and years ahead. I am absolutely certain that she will be watching, and she is probably saying, "At the end of the debate, I will be able to click this off, and I will not have to make the two-and-a-half-hour journey back down home to Enniskillen", and that will bring her a bit of joy.

What, however, does that say to us about journeys that people have to make? I commend the people from the Save Our Acute Services campaign for making their way up here. We could, however, multiply by 20 the number of people here to get the number of people across Fermanagh who have to travel up to Altnagelvin in Derry every day to access services, visit family or get treatment. That is not a short journey to make. The journey from places such as Belleek and Newtownbutler all the way up to Altnagelvin takes up to two and a half hours. Sometimes, our rural community gets forgotten about when it comes to health services. For city dwellers, that journey is the equivalent of living in Belfast and having to go to Dublin to get treatment. Nobody in Belfast would accept that. There is no way that, if they were to need emergency treatment, in that moment of their life when it is a matter of life or death, people would be sent all the way down to Dublin. Similarly, there is no way that people in Dublin would be sent all the way up to Belfast. Travelling that distance would not be considered acceptable, yet it is what we are asking people in Fermanagh to do.

It is the same in my constituency. Although the same distance is not involved, what has happened with Downe Hospital is similar. A rural community up into the Mournes and down into Kilkeel is left to make massive journeys that nobody living in the city, with two or three hospitals on their doorstep, could ever comprehend making. What we are asking for is a bit of equality. It is about spreading the services in a way that recognises that people do live in rural communities and should be able to access some of the services that they require.

As a result of the debate, I hope that the Western Trust will recognise that it is not acceptable for people to make emergency journeys of that length. I hope that the issue can be revisited and checked out.

Downe Hospital in my area is a great example of another important aspect to be considered. When the anaesthetist is removed, emergency surgery cannot be performed. When emergency surgery is removed, the emergency department is suddenly not viable. When the emergency department is removed, many other aspects of the hospital are suddenly not viable. That is why the issue is critical to the people in the Public Gallery and to the constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, because, if it does not have all aspects of a fully fledged hospital, what happens is that it gets chipped away, and then we will be back here time and time again to make the arguments for other elements of the service.

I know that we are pressed for time. I have made the points that I wanted to make, and I know that we all want to hear from the Minister, so I will leave it there.

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

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you very much, and thank you to Mrs Dodds for stepping in for Deborah. When Deborah arrived here, she very quickly established a reputation for being a respected and effective Member of the legislative Assembly, but tonight, of course, the focus is not on Deborah the politician. It is on Deborah the wife, and I offer her and her husband every good wish as they prepare to welcome their first child and start that family.

If I may, I will start with a general point, so please indulge me. When I first stood here, 15 months ago, as Minister of Health, I said that I wanted to be judged and I wanted to judge myself on whether my words and actions were delivering better outcomes for patients, service users and the 70,000-odd glorious staff who deliver health and social care. I was also encouraged that everybody — I mean everybody — who came up to me said, "If you're going to make the big, difficult decisions, we will support you". That is not always the case once we get into the nuts and bolts and the specifics.

One of the things that I regret — it is something that I am encouraging people in Health and Social Care to fix — is that sometimes a change has been allowed to be perceived in the public consciousness not as delivering better outcomes but as a cost-saving measure. I am not interested in doing that, but I have to accept that, in recent years, Health's proportion of the overall Executive Budget has gone up from 46% to over 50%, and that direction of travel is not sustainable. It is not sustainable because every pound that we spend in Health is a pound not spent by the other Departments on tackling the social determinants of health inequalities and ill health, so we all have to work together.

I was pleased that Mrs Dodds acknowledged that sometimes we rightly — it is our duty — put a focus on what is wrong and what goes wrong in health and social care delivery, but sometimes we do not put a focus on what goes right. Of course, in the majority of cases on a daily basis thousands of appointments, diagnoses and procedures go very well for people. I do not prescribe to or buy into the idea that the health service is broken, but I do know that many of the pathways to access health and social care are broken, and that is an important distinction.

Moving to the debate, I will attempt to address some of the points raised. The South West Acute Hospital serves a significant portion of the Western Health and Social Care Trust population, which is approximately 300,000 people — a significant proportion of our people. The population of the Fermanagh and Omagh District Council area is estimated at 118,000 from the 2021 census.

Since taking office, I have had the pleasure of visiting the SWAH on various occasions. The most recent visit was a few weeks ago, when I talked to some patients and staff. I visit many hospitals and healthcare facilities. I always get a sense and a feel just walking in the door. Is it a good feeling, or is it maybe that the air is being sucked out of me? I always get a really good feeling in the SWAH, which is a great modern facility. I often say that to deliver healthcare, you need buildings, beds, equipment and medicine, but all that counts for nothing if you do not have the right staff, qualified and motivated. That is where the problem began with this issue. We talked about the extra theatre and bed space. The hospital has the potential to do more, and I absolutely want to see it doing more. Let us remember — I think that Diana Armstrong made the point — that it has never been busier or more productive, and it has the potential to do even more because of those two non-commissioned theatres and beds.

I am keen to do more at the SWAH, but let me move to the specific of emergency general surgery.

In November 2022, the trust decided to temporarily suspend EGS for patient safety reasons due to staffing challenges. I understand the concern caused by the trust's decision. The protection of patients from adverse clinical outcomes has to be my most important duty; I have to make sure that patients are safe. The decision was taken at a time when there was no Minister in post. The trust stated that its ability to safely staff and operate an emergency 24/7 rota for surgical care was inadequate and unsafe. I stress that point to remind Members of the genesis of that decision. Subsequently, the trust ran a public consultation exercise on the temporary suspension, the findings of which were published in July 2023. The strength of local feeling and of opposition to the suspension was clear. However, in lieu of the inability of the trust to stand up safe services and satisfy the clinical general surgery standards, the reconfigured Altnagelvin-led service remained in place.

Members have mentioned RQIA. In 2024, it was alerted to some concerns from clinicians in the trust that had to be listened to about the robustness of the pathways at Altnagelvin. The Department of Health team asked RQIA to conduct a robust investigation and report on their effectiveness and sustainability. We got that report in the spring of this year. The outcome was presented at the Health Committee by RQIA officers on 13 March, alongside a response from the Western Trust. Essentially, there were 10 recommendations for the short and medium term for the further refinement and improvement of the pathways. While most of those had been achieved, some remained outstanding and needed to be strengthened. The strategic planning and performance group, which is the performance management arm of my Department, works with the trust monthly to monitor progress and assure me that matters are being adequately addressed.

Mrs Dodds said that there was an issue at Altnagelvin because it, too, was under pressure. I say this to her: every hospital, facility and worker in the Health and Social Care network is under pressure. Our hospitals across the region face challenges and pressures. We are not an outlier — that is the position across the UK — but having a small population of 1·9 million means that specialist services are innately difficult to fund and maintain region-wide. You cannot put them in every hospital. I have made the point about the network that we have to realise that not every hospital will offer every procedure. If the procedure that you need is being performed by your nearest hospital once a week but, 20 or 30 miles away, the next hospital is doing it 10 times a day, five days a week, where will you go? Obviously, it will be safer to go to where it is done more frequently.

Miss Dolan: Will the Minister take an intervention?

Mr Nesbitt: I am sorry; I have a lot to get through. I want to give some responses.

Mrs Dodds normally asks me about 5,000 questions: I will answer four of them. I have done Altnagelvin. She talked about an awareness of the implication of rural healthcare delivery. I assure Mrs Dodds that we do rural impact assessments as well as equality impact assessments. The SOAS road map is interesting. I think that she wondered what my view of it was. It would not be appropriate for me to give my view. I do not want to be confused for the chair or the chief executive of the Western Trust. They have to make that decision, not me. I will be the person who signs off or does not sign off on the decision that they come to, but that is that. We are looking at the two uncommissioned theatres and wards as part of our waiting list initiatives.

Mr McCrossan kindly said that I am a man of plain speaking: he is about to become a victim of that. He said that it is a brand new hospital and that it is shocking that we are discussing its future. We are not talking about whether it has a future: it does. We are discussing only one service, albeit a very important one. I want any patient who goes to the SWAH to get safe and timely attention and treatment and to be allowed the basic courtesies that are absent in our emergency departments in particular of holding on to your privacy and dignity.

I will finish by welcoming all the people who have come up from Fermanagh. I applaud you for your continued interest and your determination to do what, you think, is right for yourselves and your community. I promise that I will try to do my best for you. Thank you for coming up. I welcome you here and wish you a safe journey home.

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

Before I conclude the debate, I pass on my regards to Deborah and her family. I will be in contact with her. I last saw her on Friday, and she was definitely blooming and happy.

I say this to those who are in the Public Gallery: please drive home safely tonight. To those of you who have long distances to travel, please drive home safely.

Thank you very much indeed for the debate.