Official Report: Monday 12 January 2026

Mr Speaker: I advise Members that, as notified to the Chief Electoral Officer, William Irwin resigned as a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly for the Newry and Armagh constituency effective from 2 January 2026.

Mr Speaker: I was subsequently informed by the Chief Electoral Officer that, to fill that vacancy, Mr Gareth Wilson has been returned as a Member of the Assembly for Newry and Armagh. On Monday 5 January, Mr Wilson signed the undertaking and the Roll of Membership and entered his designation in my presence and that of the Clerk to the Assembly. He has now taken his seat. I welcome him to the Assembly and wish him every success.

Mr Speaker: Members will have been saddened to learn of the passing of two of our former Members, both of whom died on Tuesday 30 December. I am sad to announce that Joe Byrne and Mary Bradley, former MLAs for West Tyrone and Foyle respectively, have sadly passed away. I would like to take this opportunity to express my personal sympathies to Ursula and the family and Liam and the family on the loss of their husband and wife respectively.

Of the two of them, I knew Joe particularly well. Joe was a very pleasant guy and a nice guy to know. I had a lot of respect and time for him, as I had for Mrs Bradley, who served from 2003 right up to 2011. Mary was a real community person in the city of Londonderry. She did her work very well and was very well respected locally and, indeed, in the Chamber. The loss of those two former Members is very significant for the SDLP.

I express my sympathies to the SDLP but specifically to their families.

I wished to pay my tribute before we take the opportunity for others to express their condolences. I will call Mr Matthew O'Toole, and, after that, Members will have up to five minutes to pay tribute to their two colleagues.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your kind words and for offering Members the opportunity to pay their respects to two giants of public service; people who embodied the heart of the Social Democratic and Labour Party and the values that created and still animate our party and movement today. As you said, Mr Speaker, Joe and Mary died at the same time over the Christmas break. They served together in the Assembly. In a sense, they came from different traditions in the SDLP in that one represented an urban community and the other was a passionate rural champion, but collectively they represented the soul of our party: public service through commitment to the common good, cross-community politics, dialogue and serving the people who elected you.

Joe Byrne was an extraordinary public servant. He was born in Aghyaran, a townland outside Strabane; a place about which he was passionate and to which he was always connected. He was a passionate member of the GAA, and, indeed, my father was involved in the Queen's University GAA club with him in the mid-1970s. Joe was a stalwart of the team, and his passion for the GAA was something that he carried throughout his life. He sponsored and organised the first GAA event in Parliament Buildings in 2001.

Joe became a member of Omagh District Council in 1993, having been a long-standing SDLP member and activist in Tyrone. He was part of the SDLP's negotiating team that led to the Good Friday Agreement, and he was a key member of the nascent Policing Board. Our party worked hard to establish a new start for policing that could command the respect and trust of the whole community in Northern Ireland, and people such as Joe Byrne did the hard yards to make that happen.

Joe went on to be the chairperson of the SDLP between 2009 and 2012. He had two different stints in the Assembly: from 1998 in the first Assembly through to 2003, and he was elected again in 2011. That is dedication. Some might call it gluttony for punishment, but it showed his dedication to his community and the people of West Tyrone — all the people of West Tyrone. The extent of Joe's service and the respect in which he was held across the community is a testament to that. Mr Speaker, we have had words from you, and there have been tributes to Joe Byrne as a giant of public service from across the community in West Tyrone and, indeed, the whole of the North and all of Ireland.

On behalf of his colleagues, friends and comrades in the SDLP, I say that we will miss him. I went to his funeral in Killyclogher, which is just outside Omagh, on a wintry day, and the turnout was extraordinary. It was a testament to him. Our thoughts are with Ursula, Aoife, Emer, Eoin and his wider family circle. His values remain with us.

Mary Bradley was another extraordinary person who embodied the values of the SDLP. Mary was born in Derry on the Foyle Road, but she made Carnhill her home. She represented Shantallow on Derry City Council not just for years but for an entire generation. As Father Mongan said at her funeral:

She was deeply connected to the community in Derry that she served and loved. She worked for them and championed them at the council and the Assembly, and, right up to her passing, she was known as a community champion. She embodied the connection that our party has historically had with the city of Derry and the community there. Mary's warmth, generosity and kindness were remarked on by everybody who knew her. She was an astonishingly open-hearted person, which was appreciated by those from all parties who served with her in the Assembly. Our former leader, Mark Durkan senior, said of her generosity of spirit that she was bitter and partisan in only one respect, and that was in relation to football teams, because she was a passionate supporter of both Manchester United and Derry City. She was only ever a partisan and tribal figure in her support for those teams.

Both of those extraordinary individuals — Joe Byrne and Mary Bradley — embodied something that, we think, is special about our party. Their colleagues and friends in the SDLP and, particularly, the communities that they served in West Tyrone and Derry will mourn and remember them.

More broadly, they represented an outlook that we should all aspire to in public service: the people whom we serve are what matters. They were a constant reminder that what matters is not clicks on social media or controversy in the Chamber but doing right by the people who send us here and devoting every waking hour to improving their lives. I pay tribute to Joe and Mary. Rest in peace.

Mr McAleer: Over the Christmas break, I was very sad to learn of the passing of my former constituency colleague Joe Byrne. Joe spent a lifetime in public service as a lecturer in Omagh college, a councillor and an MLA. He also held many roles in the community and, as Matthew mentioned, was a GAA stalwart. I attended Joe's wake in Killyclogher, and the huge crowds that turned up to pay their respects at the wake and, indeed, at the funeral were a testimony to the high esteem in which he was held in our constituency of West Tyrone.

It was a privilege to have been Joe's constituency colleague in West Tyrone. We both served here on the then Agriculture and Rural Development Committee. When I came here in 2012, Joe was the Deputy Chair of the Committee, and, by coincidence, I am the Deputy Chair now. Joe was a relentless voice for rural communities and all the people of West Tyrone and beyond. Even though we were from different parties, we worked together on many issues, including health in the west, the A5 and common agricultural policy reform. Even before I was a public representative, Joe assisted me by giving me advice and support on planning permission for the house that I now live in with my wife and family.

Joe served as an Omagh district councillor with my late father Barney McAleer in the 1990s. Daddy also held Joe in high regard, finding him to be a very fair and effective public representative and considering him to be a friend.

On my behalf and that of Sinn Féin, I extend our thoughts and prayers to Joe's wife, Ursula, and all the family and, indeed, to Joe's SDLP colleagues at this sad time. I hope that he rests in eternal peace.

Mr T Buchanan: I express my sincere condolences to the Byrne family on the recent passing of Joe, a beloved husband and father and a friend to all who knew him.

Joe and I were first elected to Omagh District Council in 1993, where he served for a number of years. He also served in the House as an MLA for West Tyrone. He was a great advocate for the SDLP. During his political career, Joe was passionate about delivery in West Tyrone, and we worked together on many subjects. On employment opportunities, infrastructure projects, economic growth, equality in health and education and many other issues, Joe's voice was always heard lobbying for his constituents. He was never one to back away from the difficult decisions that had to be taken. Joe was always there, and he was a gentleman to work with.

Joe worked tirelessly for the constituency until he was forced to step aside due to deteriorating health. However, he endured his health conditions with great fortitude and always had a positive word to say any time that I met him, enquiring about the political situation and how things were going in West Tyrone. He was a gentleman to work alongside, and he was dedicated to the people of West Tyrone. Irrespective of class, creed or who they were, Joe was dedicated to working for those people.

Joe will be sorely missed by his wife, family and friends and by his colleagues in the SDLP. To you all today, I tender our deepest and heartfelt sympathy and trust that you will find strength in the days to come. Today is a timely reminder that

It therefore behoves each one of us to

Mr Dickson: On behalf of the Alliance Party, I pay tribute to Mary Bradley and Joe Byrne.

Mary Bradley was, as Members have already been made aware, an MLA for Foyle. That was before my time in this place: in fact, she was leaving the Assembly as I arrived in 2011. She was a councillor for the Shantallow area on the then Derry City Council from 1985, and she served as deputy mayor in 1990 and as mayor between 1991 and 1992. It was during that time that I met her on a number of occasions as a local councillor. I was also very saddened to hear of the passing of Joe Byrne, and I want to extend my condolences to both of their families and friends and to their colleagues in the SDLP.

As with Mary, I first knew Joe as a local councillor and met him at various events over the years. We were both elected to the Assembly, with him being re-elected, in 2011. During my first term as an MLA, like many new Members, I was finding my feet in this place. Joe was one of those Members who brought previous experience, calm and, indeed, a sense of perspective to the Chamber. We both served for a time on the then Regional Development Committee, on which he was a tireless campaigner for the A5 road project. As others have said, he was always knowledgeable about his constituency and worked for everyone. He was respectful throughout and serious about the job that he was elected to do. He cared deeply about representing his constituents and about the work of the Assembly. That always came through in how he worked.

At times like this, it is right that we put politics to one side and recognise the people behind the roles that they hold. My thoughts at this sad time are with the Bradley and Byrne families, their party colleagues and all those who knew and worked with Joe and Mary. Theirs will be lives well remembered.

Mr Nesbitt: On behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party, I offer condolences to the friends and families of Joe Byrne and Mary Bradley and to the Members and supporters of the SDLP — but also, actually, to anybody who supports democracy, because here were two great democrats who gave their lifetimes to public service, as we all aspire to do.

I had the pleasure of serving with Joe Byrne during my early years in the House. That was his second spell as a Member of the Legislative Assembly. Of course, he came with life skills, because he was a graduate in economics from Queen's University, from where he went on to become a lecturer in business studies at the then Omagh College of Further Education. It is so important that Members come into the Chamber with life skills. Some will say that Joe's passion was for agriculture, but he did not have passion just for that: he had a passion for educating our children and for all matters rural. He also served on the Policing Board, and he did so at a time when the whole concept of a Policing Board was relatively novel and all the more challenging because of that. I remember Joe as a gentleman but also as a quiet but effective politician in the Chamber and in Committees.

Like Mr Dickson, I came here in 2011, so I did not serve with Mary Bradley, who was stepping down at that time, having come here first in 2003. She served during some of the really tough years for the Assembly as it was trying to bed itself down. If there is something that connects Joe and Mary, it is that they were two great advocates of the mantra that all politics is local. Mary, of course, was a great advocate for the people of Derry, and particularly for those who were suffering disadvantage. She was also a great advocate for women in politics and, indeed, for women serving more generally in public life. It is fitting, Mr Speaker, that you make space for all of us to pay tribute to two people who walked the hard yards in the difficult years and devoted themselves to public service. May they rest in peace.

Mr McCrossan: I rise to pay tribute to Joe Byrne, who was a former colleague in the Assembly; a mentor to many of us in the SDLP; and a man whose life was defined not by title or position but by service, integrity and humanity. Joe entered public life during some of the most difficult and formative years in our recent history. He believed deeply that politics mattered, that it should be done with integrity, and that it should always be rooted in respect for people. He lived by the belief, often expressed by our dear friend Seamus Mallon, that the first rule of politics is to be there for people. Joe lived by that rule every single day.

Whether in the council chamber, on the Floor of the Assembly or at a kitchen table at a constituent's home, he showed up, listened and cared. He worked patiently to find solutions that made a real difference to the lives of our people. Joe made a significant contribution to peace and public life here. He played a pivotal role in the slow, demanding work that helped to build a more stable and hopeful society, work that required patience rather than posturing, openness rather than entrenchment, listening rather than shouting and perseverance rather than triumphalism.

Those qualities defined Joe Byrne's approach to politics and public life, but Joe was never only a politician. Long before holding public office, he was deeply involved in youth work and sport, particularly through Gaelic games. He was a founding member of Strabane Sigersons GAA club. He was the club's first coach and, indeed, its first chairman. Beyond that, he was rooted in GAA games at Queen's University and in his local area of Omagh. He devoted countless hours to developing our young people, not just as players but as individuals. What mattered most to Joe Byrne was not simply winning but how the game was played. He believed that sport was a place where discipline, teamwork, fairness and respect were learned. He demanded standards but never at the cost of dignity.

That belief in people ran through every aspect of Joe's life. He was an educator, a lecturer and a businessman with a sharp and instinctive understanding of enterprise, and he was always willing to take a risk if it meant creating opportunity. He understood the importance of education, having a strong local economy and investing in the future of rural communities. That is why he championed issues such as healthcare, education, infrastructure, agriculture and, in particular, the A5. He understood their transformational impact on the lives of ordinary people, those whom he represented. Joe was also a founding member of the Policing Board, helping to build confidence in new institutions at a time when trust was fragile and hard-won. Across politics and across communities, he commanded respect for his calm, informed and constructive approach.

I want to speak personally for a moment about my friend. Joe brought me into politics. He believed in me, encouraged me and supported me at every single stage. Our paths crossed by accident, but I have no regrets, and I sincerely hope that he did not either. He offered advice freely, shared his experience generously and always made time. I am deeply grateful to him for the opportunity, for his friendship and for the confidence that he placed in me. It has been an honour to follow in the footsteps of such a great man and represent his beloved West Tyrone.

Above all else, Joe Byrne was a husband and a father. His wife, Ursula, was his anchor throughout their life together. A partner in every sense of the word, she shared the demands of public life, the joys of family life and, later, the challenges of Joe's illness. Her strength, love and constancy sustained Joe through his hardest days. Together, they raised three children, Aoife, Emer and Eoin, who were the centre of Joe's world and his greatest pride. His understanding of family, loyalty and strong relationships shaped the kind of public representative that he was. He knew that politics only mattered if it strengthened lives, not strained them. Joe was fiercely loyal to friendship. He valued long-standing relationships deeply and never let them drift. He stayed connected, interested and present. Those qualities defined him as a friend and public servant. Even as Parkinson's disease took hold, Joe's interest in people, politics and the world never faded. Those who spent time with him speak of conversations filled with thoughtfulness, humour and gratitude rather than complaint. Joe's faith guided his life. In divided times, he was measured. In difficult times, he was steady. In uncertain periods, he remained hopeful. He believed in peace not as an abstract idea but as a responsibility, something to be worked for, protected and handed on.

Today, we mourn the loss of a former colleague, mentor and dear friend, but we also celebrate a life rooted in service, loyalty and love. Joe stood for the very best of public life — the best of all of us — and his lesson will continue to guide us for many years to come. On behalf of the Assembly and the SDLP, our deepest sympathies go to Ursula, Aoife, Emer and Eoin and the wider Byrne family. Rest in peace, Joe.

Ms Ferguson: I express my condolences on the recent passing of Mary Bradley to Liam; Paula, Mary's daughter; Fiona and Aaron, her grandchildren; and Olivia, her great-grandchild; her wider family circle; her neighbours in Carnhill; her many friends across the city; and her colleagues in the SDLP.

Mary will be sorely missed by our city and beyond. She was held in the utmost regard as a strong voice for Derry, with a strong ability to form meaningful connections and relationships across the city whilst serving as a councillor for nearly two decades from 1995. She served a term as the Mayor of Derry city from 1991 to 1992.

Mary was also one of 17 women out of 108 MLAs elected to the Assembly back in 2003. She made a significant contribution to advancing the role of women in public life and was held in high regard for her active involvement in community development. In my role as a community development officer in Shantallow for over 20 years, I attended many a meeting and public meeting with Mary and was involved with her in other ways, particularly on improving the quality of life of our people and communities. She was a very active member of the Resource Centre Derry (RCD), which is based in Carnhill. I never went in there to meet with the CEO, the late Betty Feeney, but Mary Bradley was sitting there as well. I had to get any decision that had to be made past both of them. Mary was very strong, clear and articulate, and I cherish the times that I spent working with her on advancing community development in the greater Shantallow area.

I also acknowledge and recognise Mary's commitment to achieving improved health outcomes, particularly for mental health and well-being. She was a keen advocate for improved health outcomes, not just locally but across the North.

I finish by simply saying may eternal rest be granted unto Mary, may she rest peacefully and may her loved ones be comforted by the immense gratitude that exists for all the work that she did for the city of Derry and its people throughout her life.

Mr Robinson: I cannot claim to have served with the late Mary Bradley. She served in the Assembly before my time, but, by all accounts, she was an incredibly hard worker, a very popular mayor, a grassroots, on-the-ground politician and a lady much loved and well liked in her former political party and across the political spectrum who gave 25 years of service to the people of Londonderry.

I therefore extend sympathies from the DUP to the SDLP. Although she will be missed by the people of that city, she will particularly be missed by her family and family circle, today and tomorrow. The DUP sends them its sincere condolences.

Mr Burrows: I extend my condolences to the friends, family and colleagues of Mary Bradley and Joe Byrne. I met Mary many times when I served in the city. Like all the SDLP representatives there, she exemplified service, dignity and courage. It was not an easy time to be an SDLP politician, particularly in a place such as Londonderry, or Derry: whatever you want to call it. Many times I was at their homes, speaking with them and helping them when their houses had been attacked and they had come under threat. Aside from her commitment to public service, she therefore showed courage to stand up and serve at a time before everyone supported policing, when times were very dangerous indeed.

Mary was part of a great team, alongside the likes of Gerry Diver, Thomas Conway and Mark H. One thing that I will say about Mary is that her passion for her community was loud and clear, but there was a dignity and a fairness about her that exemplified the SDLP's approach to politics. Mary would contact me and then follow up on it if she thought that something had to be challenged, but she would always ring me or my colleagues and ask for the facts. If you were fair with Mary, she was always fair with you.

There was something very old school about Mary Bradley. I pay tribute to that genuine sense of public service, to which we should all aspire. As I went through my police career, I was inspired by Mary Bradley and her like, who gave of their time and energy, at considerable risk to themselves and their families, to serve democracy and to hold dear to the idea that one can have a passionate belief that is contrary to what someone else believes but can still be courteous and civil with them and never think that violence is the right thing.

We take that for granted now, but, when Mary served, that was not always the case.

I am thankful that we had people like Mary Bradley in our politics. It was a privilege to meet her when I did. I send my condolences to the party, to Mary's friends and family and, of course, to the friends and family of Joe Byrne.

Ms McLaughlin: I am proud to rise to remember two former colleagues in the Assembly and remarkable servants of the people: Mary Bradley and Joe Byrne.

I begin with Mary because she was one of us — one of Derry's own — and someone whom I was privileged to know well. Mary did not enter politics for status or profile; she entered politics for one simple reason: people. That never changed. From her election to Derry City Council in 1985 through to her time as mayor of Derry and, later, in the Assembly Mary's politics were always rooted in the same values: fairness, dignity and decency. Mary was not flashy. She was not interested in grandstanding. She was, however, fearless in standing up for her community and relentless in doing the work that really mattered.

As someone who represents the same constituency, I see Mary's legacy everywhere. I see it in Carnhill, in the community groups that she supported, in the families whom she stood alongside in difficult moments and in the quiet confidence that she gave people who felt overlooked or unheard. Mary had that rare combination of strength and warmth. You always knew where you stood with Mary, and you always knew that she would stand with you when it mattered. She believed deeply in the values of the SDLP — equality, social justice, community and hope — but, more important, she lived those values in her casework, in council chambers, in the Assembly and in the countless private moments when she helped someone who had nowhere else to turn. Mary understood something simple but powerful: that politics is not about documents, debates or policy but about human lives. The mother worried about her child, the pensioner struggling to make ends meet, the young person searching for an opportunity and the volunteer holding a community together: Mary saw them all and fought for them all.

Beyond politics, her love of grassroots football, youth development and community life showed the depth of her commitment. She knew that strong communities were not built only in buildings like this but on the playing fields, in the youth clubs, in the advice centres, in the church halls and in everyday acts of kindness. Mary Bradley leaves behind a city that is stronger because of her, a party that is better because of her and a generation of public servants who learned from her. She taught us that real leadership is service, that politics must always be rooted in compassion and that, no matter how hard the road, you never stop standing up for your community.

I want to thank Mary's family, her husband, Liam, her daughter, Paula, her grandchildren, Fiona and Aaron, and her great-grandchild, for sharing her with us. Public service is never an individual journey but is carried by families who sacrifice and support every step of the way. Mary's family were incredible, loyal and a great source of support and strength to Mary. Mary, you showed us what it means to serve with integrity, lead with heart and put people first always.

I also want to remember Joe Byrne, a giant of public service and lifelong champion for the people of Tyrone. I did not know Joe Byrne well, but I knew his reputation for integrity, kindness and commitment, which reached far beyond his constituency. Joe lived by the principle expressed by his friend Séamus Mallon: the first rule of politics is to be there for people. As far as I know and by all the accounts that people have shared with me, Joe lived that every day. Joe believed in peace, not as an abstract idea but as something that comes with responsibility and as something to be worked for, protected and passed on. Joe was calm, thoughtful and practical, and he was deeply respected across party lines. Above all, Joe was a family man: his wife Ursula and their children Aoife, Emer and Eoin were the centre of his world and the source of his greatest pride.

Today we mourn the loss of colleagues and peacemakers, but we also celebrate their lives of service. They had a reputation for decency and a belief that politics at its best is something that lifts people up. May Mary and Joe rest in peace. May their families get comfort in knowing that they were valued and respected and that they will be missed by the SDLP family.

Mr Durkan: Today we pause to remember two giants who embodied not just the values of the SDLP but public service in its truest sense and whose passing leaves a deep sadness for our party, our communities and, first and foremost, the families of Mary Bradley and Joe Byrne. Mary and Joe served not for recognition or reward but because they believed profoundly in people, in fairness and in the responsibility that comes with representing others. They were political representatives of a generation that understood politics not as a performance but as a service rooted in listening, empathy and hard work carried out quietly and consistently.

Mary Bradley was a formidable advocate for our constituents. She brought strength, compassion and determination to everything that she did, never losing sight of the people behind the issues. She had an unwavering commitment to equality and social justice that she carried with dignity and resolve, even in the most challenging circumstances. She was Derry and, as we have heard, Derry City Football Club to the core. However, she was not bitter or partisan even when it came to football: I recall on council her always championing Institute Football Club in our city and the need to provide it with adequate facilities.

Joe Byrne, in his way, reflected the same values. He believed deeply in community, decency and the power of local representation to improve lives. Joe's politics was shaped by his humanity and a belief that progress is measured not in rhetoric but in the difference that we can make to people's lives every day. He made a difference through education, the GAA and his role as an elected representative.

Mary and Joe were shaped in and by difficult times. We have heard Members refer to the threats and attacks to which they were subjected, but neither of them allowed those times to harden them; instead, they chose hope over bitterness, dialogue over division and service over self. They helped to build the foundations on which others now stand, and they did so with integrity and humility. We extend our deepest sympathy to their loving families, their friends and all who had the privilege of working alongside them. Mary and Joe will be remembered not just for the esteemed offices that they held but for the values that they lived by. Ar dheis Dé go raibh a n-anam.

Mr Speaker: Timothy Gaston has been given leave to make a statement on the ongoing political crisis and international tensions in Venezuela that fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. Members who wish to be called can indicate that by rising in their place. All Members will have up to three minutes to speak. I call Mr Gaston.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The actions of the United States in Venezuela were not taken against a legitimate, democratically elected Government. In 2020, Maduro was federally charged in the United States with crimes including terrorism and international drug trafficking. Those charges alleged direct involvement with global trafficking networks and collaboration with the Colombian terrorist organisation, FARC. His removal from power has not been met with mourning or protest by the people of Venezuela; it has been welcomed with open celebration by those who lived for years under his jackboot. That, of course, has not been the reaction of some closer to home, and that is small wonder, because we do not need to travel to Venezuela to find people with links to drug-trafficking and Marxist terrorism. The party opposite spent years campaigning for the release of three IRA men who travelled to Colombia to train FARC in methods of murder and terror. Sinn Féin figures were content to hobnob with the Venezuelan dictatorship, attending events, ceremonies and inaugurations after Maduro clung to office following an election that the world knew to be fraudulent. While they now rush to condemn the actions of the United States, delivering lectures about bombings, forcible removal and detention, my mind inevitably turns to a great contrast between their words today and their record yesterday.

Jean McConville never stood before a court. She was never afforded legal representation. She was never given due process. She was abducted, murdered and secretly buried when the Provisional movement chose to act as judge, jury and executioner. That exposes the reality behind Sinn Féin's outrage. We are witnessing not principled opposition to violence or injustice but selective outrage shaped entirely by far-left, anti-Western ideology in which tyrants are excused so long as they mouth the correct slogans and hate the correct enemies.

I welcome the removal of Nicolás Maduro. I commend the United States for a job well done.

Mr Carroll: It is worth acknowledging the seriousness of the devastating intervention that the United States launched on the people of Caracas almost a week ago, which killed at least 50 people. We know that the United States has a sorry, brutal history of intervention, capture, overthrowing democracy and undermining the wishes of local people across the world, specifically in Latin America. However, what the Trump Administration carried out on 3 January was next-level stuff. We should be absolutely clear on what it was: it was kidnapping. That is what happened on 3 January. It is also worth emphasising that the country of Venezuela posed and poses no risk to the people of the United States or the United States Government.

The rules-based international order was always a fabrication, and the United States has always done what it wanted to do, but they did not even pretend to go through the motions when it came to capturing a democratically elected leader. The response from unionist parties in the House is absolutely baffling. Imagine the scenes, the comments and the rightful outcry if Vladimir Putin launched a campaign to kidnap the deputy First Minister of this Administration. Unionist parties would be rightly outraged. They would cry foul and oppose that and rightly so, but, when the US does it, it is, "Work away, lads. Do what you want". It is obscene stuff.

Operation Absolute Resolve is classic Yankee imperialism launched by the biggest empire in world history. That empire has been forced to retreat from other parts of the world but thinks that it can intervene in what it calls its "hemisphere".

It is up to the Venezuelan people, as it is the people of any country, to determine their leader, their Government and who rules them. From day 1, the US and the EU hated the project of Chavismo, which, to sum it up, was about limiting the power of multinational corporations and redistributing wealth and resources to poor and indigenous people. The US, the EU and Western Governments detest that — they went so far as to back and finance a coup against Chávez in 2002.

This is not about stopping drugs. Amidst the boats that were captured by the US, 115 people who were working on the seas were killed. It is worth mentioning that the drug charges against Maduro have been dropped. Not a single ounce of drug paraphernalia was found on those boats. That is not to mention Trump's pardoning of the former Honduran president. In a rare moment of honesty, Trump admitted what it is about: oil.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Kearney: The US assault against Venezuelan national sovereignty has serious and far-reaching repercussions for the primacy of international law and the authority of the United Nations charter. That act of US military aggression is deeply destabilising for Venezuela as well as the wider Latin American and Caribbean region. It comes at a time when the illegal embargo against Cuba has intensified and the American president is threatening more unilateral military attacks in the Middle East while repeating his threats against the sovereignty of Greenland.

It is notable that the illegal removal of the Venezuelan president from office by the US sits in marked contrast with the American Administration's defiance of the International Criminal Court arrest warrants in the names of Israeli political leaders, which were issued for genocidal crimes against the Palestinian people.

During the past 12 months, there has been an unprecedented undermining of the multilateral system. International law must be defended and enforced. There is no legitimate or legal alternative to respect for national sovereignty, the use of diplomacy and peaceful coexistence, so the aggression must be unambiguously condemned. What is now required is an urgent de-escalation of political tensions in Venezuela and the establishment of regional political stability and security.

Mr Buckley: We should not kid ourselves for one moment that we understand the intricacies of the military operation that took place in Venezuela. We know only that it was a daring, courageous and well-executed military operation by our friends, neighbours and allies in the United States military. I often think of the military families in times such as these: what difficulties their partners and loved ones face, and what risks they take, in the name of national security.

What we do know is information about Nicolás Maduro and, indeed, his Administration. He was a dictator and a ruthless one at that. Under his regime, Venezuela has seen political prisoners, torture, extra-judicial killings, crushed protests, and the courts and media being overrun and captured by the regime. The UN has found credible evidence of crimes against humanity being used to keep Maduro in power. He was not a democratically elected president: he was using the cover of democratic office, but the election in which he saw office was discredited by all as having been won on false pretences.

Maduro was a narco-terrorist. He was propped up by Russia, China and Iran, and his regime has long-running overlaps with organised crime networks. Let us be clear: Maduro was Vladimir Putin's key asset in South America. In that context, the Western lefties and, indeed, Members in the Chamber who want to run to his rescue and cry foul at his extradition could not be further from reality. They have chosen to sign up with and stand alongside far left terrorists, including Hamas, ETA, FARC — the list could go on. Those are the types of organisations that have received Sinn Féin support for years, so it should surprise none of us that Sinn Féin's Conor Murphy and Chris Hazzard attended Maduro's inauguration. Sinn Féin cannot continue to ride two horses. The American public has well caught on to the types of far left extremists and global despot regimes that Sinn Féin supports. The $1,000 dinner plates in the United States will not be as easily filled this year or in years to come, as American citizens catch on very quickly to Sinn Féin's game. The Americans are no fools.

Mr Tennyson: Nicolás Maduro was a brutal and illegitimate dictator, and the Alliance Party certainly sheds no tears for his downfall. For years, the Venezuelan people have been subject to repression, corruption and economic collapse, with families torn apart and millions displaced. However, the crimes of a dictator do not give Donald Trump carte blanche to break international law or disregard the UN charter. No state, no matter how powerful, is entitled to run roughshod over the rules that safeguard global stability. We know what happens when American presidents take illegal action under the pretext of an imminent threat. This illegal action sets a dangerous precedent for Russia, China or any other Government that might now be emboldened to violate sovereignty. It makes the world more unstable, more unpredictable and more dangerous.

It is abundantly clear that, for Donald Trump, this was not about liberating the Venezuelan people. He has praised authoritarian regimes and dictators around the globe. If democracy had been the objective, the United States would not have sidelined Nobel Peace Prize winner María Machado and other key opposition figures — individuals who have risked their lives for democratic reform. Instead, in order to get his hands on Venezuelan oil, Donald Trump is happy to do business with Delcy Rodríguez from Maduro's very same brutal and illegitimate regime. Nor was this action about tackling drugs, given the fact that Donald Trump has used his executive powers to pardon narco-terrorists and drug dealers during his time in office. It was about proving that might is right and defending only the interests of American oil companies. Anybody who believes that President Trump will stop here has not been paying attention: they clearly have not read his own national security strategy. Already, he has issued threats to countries including Cuba, Colombia and Greenland.

There are two great hypocrisies on display in the Chamber. The United Kingdom was key to setting up multinational institutions and a system of international law. Today, we have already heard two unionist politicians cheerleading Donald Trump in ripping down that international order. We also have a so-called progressive party in the form of Sinn Féin that cannot utter a word of condemnation for Maduro and his illegitimate regime. When Sinn Féin had the choice, it stood alongside him at his inauguration and claimed that it was open and democratic. When Sinn Féin had the choice between standing with the Venezuelan people or a brutal dictator, it chose the brutal dictator. Sinn Féin owes the people of Venezuela an apology. We cannot cherry-pick when we apply international law and human rights. As a party on these Benches that is committed to international law, human rights and a rules-based order, we want to see free and fair elections held in Venezuela without delay.

Dr Aiken: Happy new year to you, Mr Speaker, and to everybody in the Assembly.

Anybody who witnessed the Sinn Féin demonstration at the US embassy in Dublin and the Venezuelan counter-demonstration will know that the latter made it very clear that President Maduro's demise is very much welcomed by Venezuelans, who were subject to his tyranny for far too long. One of the key questions is this: what was the United States doing, and was it just a one-off act by the United States president? Anybody who has been looking at what has been going on in Venezuela and the wider region for the past year would have seen that there was an enormous diplomatic effort and push to try to get Maduro to move offside. It was made very clear to him that he would be given Ofpra status. He was expected to take it, but he did not. Instead, he doubled down and made the situation worse in Venezuela.

This as an abject lesson for anyone who believes in socialist, Thirty-two Counties wonder areas — or Narnias. Venezuela should be one of the richest countries. It was one of the richest places in South America. It has one of the largest amounts of resources in oil, gas, gold and silver. Anybody who understands Venezuela knows that, before Chávez and Maduro destroyed it, it was a vibrant country. It was one of the leaders in the region and an area that was becoming one of the leaders of South America. It was being talked about in the same way as Brazil, but let us see what happened: in Venezuela, there is starvation, a lack of jobs and no human rights. If that is what socialist republics are about, you can count me out.

Another important aspect is how we dealt with the awful situation of the shadow fleet and the ship that came from Venezuela. All Members should thank the United States Navy, the United States Coast Guard, the Royal Air Force and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary for their work on the high seas to stop the Bella 1 or the Marinera or whatever they are calling the ship now. It was a potential environmental disaster, and the fact that we were able to prevent such a disaster and stop the ship from getting back to Russia says something important about the strategic position of Northern Ireland. I, for one, was very pleased to see that the United States Navy and the US Air Force were able to use Aldergrove as a diversionary airfield during that difficult operation. It demonstrates yet again the strategic importance of Northern Ireland. There is no such thing as Northern Ireland having no long-term strategic implications. The most important thing is that Northern Ireland is strategically important to NATO, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Mr O'Toole: We have rather drifted from the main topic of the action in Venezuela, so let me bring it back to that. When talking about politics and international affairs, there is a truth that, unfortunately, is undermined or sometimes obviated by social media, which is that two things can be true at the same time. It can be true that Nicolás Maduro and his Government were illegitimate, authoritarian and profoundly objectionable. It is not just that they were but that they are, because the Maduro regime is still in place at the behest of Donald Trump and his Government. It can, however, also be true that launching an illegal operation inside sovereign territory to remove, abduct and kidnap a political leader, even if you find them objectionable and they are authoritarian and acting profoundly against the interests of their own people, is a bad thing. Both things can be bad. It is not the case that by the simple fact of Maduro being an objectionable authoritarian that the United States was justified in going in and illegally abducting him. It was not.

We are living in a deeply destabilising era of international law. Even if, as some people say, there has always been a significant degree of hypocrisy in the upholding of international law, lots of which we have seen, such as the appalling actions of Israel and the lack of consequences for that, the fact that the states that created the international order after the Second World War, including the United States, were willing to acknowledge the presence of international law was, at least, some form of guard rail mitigation. We do not have any of that now.

The United States' going in and abducting Maduro, however objectionable or authoritarian he was, is deeply troubling because the consequences and precedent are unbelievably serious. What is now to stop Putin from saying, "My action in Ukraine is entirely justified", as obnoxious, illegal and hateful as it is? What is to stop Xi Jinping saying, "I now want to go in and launch some kind of action in Taiwan", just as Trump did with Venezuela, because he said that it was in his neighbourhood in the Western hemisphere. What is to stop them from doing that and saying, "The United States is doing that in Venezuela, so why can we not do it in our neighbourhoods?" Let us think through the consequences.

Yes, by all means, I am happy to call out Sinn Féin's position on Maduro as being unacceptable, but I was astonished to hear unionist politician after unionist politician stand up today and pay tribute to the Trump regime and what it is doing in Venezuela. They are not listening to what is being said in the Chamber. Frankly, they do not care about the UK, Europe or anyone else other than their own interests, their own authoritarianism, their own pockets and their own desire to bend the world to their will. I caution people in the Chamber to think more carefully —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr O'Toole: — about the consequences of what is happening in the world today.

Ms Sheerin: I speak this afternoon about a deeply disturbing occurrence that we have seen rise in popularity over the past week: the use of AI to invent images that sexualise young women and girls and the real threat that that poses. We talk all the time in the Chamber and, indeed, across society about violence against women and girls, and this is a new way of torturing women. I often think of the phrase, "Sticks and stones may break your bones, but words cannot hurt you": we know, of course, that that is not true. Such images are deeply harmful to the women and young people who have been targeted.

We need to see more action in response to the Grok technology that is being used to undress people without their consent or permission. The owners of X, formerly known as Twitter, have removed that function for anyone who is not a paid user, but they need to go further than that. That call has already been made by a range of people. We need to see action from Ofcom and the British Government to criminalise those who have engaged in such behaviour. The Minister of Justice has formally committed to criminalising deepfake technology and the creation of deepfake images. I know that we will want to work with her to ensure that that is done as quickly as possible.

There needs to be a united message from the House that the sharing of inappropriate images is illegal and that sharing such images without consent is illegal. As well as that, the creation of such images should be discouraged and made illegal. There is a massive piece of cross-departmental work to be done on education and on engaging with young people in particular to have conversations with them about the ramifications of such harmful crimes and of sharing images. We have seen the rise of such behaviour even in our schools, and its long-term impacts are crazy.

I commend the bravery of the young person in Armagh who came forward when they were made aware that such an image had been created of them. I encourage all young people affected, instead of suffering shame and, as a result, seeing more harm done, to come forward and talk about it in order to ensure that the perpetrators are brought to justice.

Mr Wilson: I take this important opportunity to pay tribute to the 10 innocent men so brutally and callously murdered by the IRA at Kingsmills on 5 January 1976. It is 50 years since that horrific attack, and, over recent days, there has been a series of important events to mark the tragic 50-year anniversary. It was a solemn privilege to attend those events and to stand in support of the families of those innocent men.

The special anniversary service in Bessbrook town hall on 4 January was especially poignant. It saw hundreds of people gather together in solidarity with the Kingsmills families and show in a very warm and real fashion that those innocent, hard-working family men will never be forgotten. A special anniversary service was also held last night in Tullyallen Presbyterian Church, where family and friends of victim the late Mr Robert Walker gathered to pay tribute to him and the nine other victims. That was an especially important and moving service, and it was a solemn privilege to attend it. Each year on 5 January, a special roadside service at the scene of the attack is held. That is always a solemn, reflective and important event, and I know that it will continue for many years to come. The conducting of that annual special roadside service ensures that the innocent victims of the IRA attack at Kingsmills continue to be remembered.

The story of Kingsmills will not be rewritten or airbrushed. The hurt and pain of that horrific night has not diminished with the passage of time, nor has the desire to see justice served against the ruthless IRA perpetrators of the attack. The families of the 10 innocent men who were murdered and, of course, the survivor of the attack, Mr Alan Black, continue to pursue justice and truth in a most dignified manner. I stand with them, as do many of my colleagues in the House. There must be renewed resolve from the Government, the police and the justice system and a renewed focus on bringing the perpetrators of the attack to justice. My thoughts and prayers continue to be with the families in the days ahead.

Ms K Armstrong: Mr Speaker, I wish you and everyone in the House a very happy new year.

Unfortunately, it has not been such a happy new year for some people in Northern Ireland. On Sunday 4 January — one of the coldest nights of the year so far — 11 people were forced to sleep on the streets in sub-zero temperatures. That happened despite the severe weather emergency protocol (SWEP) being in place. SWEP exists for one reason: to prevent anyone from sleeping rough during life-threatening weather conditions. On that night, it failed. Those 11 people were turned away because there was not enough space in communal areas. I have to ask why that happened. I have reached out to the Minister for Communities to ask why it happened on his watch and to ask him to ensure that it never happens again.

It is not just a procedural failure; it is a failure that put lives at risk. The public expect us to act when systems designed to protect the most vulnerable break down. The Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) has reported that 58 homeless people died in Northern Ireland in 2024. That is 58 lives lost — 58 tragedies that should compel us to do better. When a protocol that is designed to save life fails, the consequences will be fatal. We cannot allow more homeless people to become statistics.

SWEP is supposed to provide emergency accommodation in communal spaces provided by hotels, hostels, churches — anywhere that offers warmth and safety — yet 11 people were turned away because there was not enough space. Was it a lack of capacity, a breakdown in communication or a failure in planning? Did the Department, perhaps, not provide enough money to deliver the service? Those are questions that demand answers.

The Department and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive know that the number of out-of-hours homeless requests has exploded over the past three years. In July of last year, 1,675 people presented to the out-of-hours service. That was in just one month, in warm weather. Imagine if 1,675 people were to present in December and January and be turned away.

There has been a call by Councillor Paul McCusker at Belfast City Council to say that the out-of-hours service is dysfunctional and chaotic, so we have to get it fixed. There is public outcry every time that a homeless person dies on our streets and rightly so. The public expect leadership. I need to know and I need the Minister to outline what steps he will take to ensure that every person who needs shelter during severe weather gets it and what changes will be made to guarantee that SWEP works every time it is needed. No one should be left out in the cold again.

Ms D Armstrong: Over the past few days, the media have been reporting that an allegedly ruthless female commander of the IRA's south Fermanagh brigade, who played a key role in the Enniskillen Poppy Day bomb that murdered 12 people 38 years ago, has been seen back in the town of Enniskillen. She is understood to have moved abroad after the Poppy Day bomb but has been sighted frequently, as far back as 2015.

Thirteen people have been arrested in connection with the bomb in Enniskillen on Remembrance Day, on 8 November 1987, but nobody has been charged. The recent revelations add further pain and anguish to the families of those who were murdered, maimed and traumatised by that horrific terrorist attack. Seeing headlines and images from that tragic day recycled again and again reopens wounds that do not go away.

At times like these, we must remember the people who are at the very centre of the tragedy. I knew many of the victims very well, as they attended the same church as I did. It still pains me that innocent people who were paying respect at the solemn eleventh hour should have been slaughtered in such a wanton and cruel manner. Families still seek truth, justice and accountability, yet Sinn Féin still cannot issue words of condemnation.

I call for clarity on the revelation. There is a name out there that I will not give at this stage. I will write to the Chief Constable to ask whether that person has been in receipt of a comfort letter, and I will ask that the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR) re-examines the investigation for any outstanding or unreported evidence. The Republic of Ireland has a clear statutory duty of disclosure and candour, yet there are substantial concerns about its transparency around legacy issues. There is also an ongoing failure to properly engage with the ICRIR in relation to Troubles crimes committed in Northern Ireland. For Enniskillen, for the families and for truth and accountability, this must be investigated.

Mr McCrossan: Before I begin my Member's statement, I welcome Mr Wilson to the House. I congratulate him on his appointment to the Assembly and wish him well in the time ahead. On behalf of the SDLP, I also thank William Irwin for his many years of dedicated service. We wish him a long and happy retirement with his family.

This afternoon, I will focus on older people's care. We have an older population that is growing and is expected to continue to grow over the coming decade. Older people built the society that we live in. They worked, paid their taxes, raised families and held communities together through some of the most difficult and divided years this place has known. Yet, today, too many of our older people feel abandoned by a system that the Northern Ireland Executive have failed to properly plan for, fund or reform. Today, 12% of our older population live in relative poverty, and 9% of pensioners live in absolute poverty. Those numbers, which are in the thousands, are entirely unacceptable. It is also reported that 18% to 23% of our older population suffer from loneliness and that 80,000 people in Northern Ireland over the age of 65 live alone.

Huge challenges face our older population, which, as I said, is growing while the services that older people rely on are shrinking. That is not an accident; it is the result of years of drift, delay and, unfortunately, political inaction. Access to health services is becoming harder, not easier, and getting a GP appointment often feels like winning the lottery. Hospital waiting lists are among the worst in western Europe, and older people pay the price first and have the longest waits. Community services that once allowed older people to live independently have been steadily stripped back. Preventative care has been hollowed out, leaving families to cope alone and forcing people into crisis before help appears. That is not a joined-up health and social care system but one that reacts too late and costs more in the long run to repair.

For many older people, the cost-of-living crisis has been relentless, because their fixed incomes simply do not stretch to cover soaring energy bills, the rising cost of food and increasing costs generally. People who planned carefully and lived responsibly now worry about whether they can heat their homes or make ends meet. The Executive have talked a great deal about protecting the vulnerable in our society, but, unfortunately, the numbers do not add up.

There is a great injustice in how we fund care. People who worked all their life, paid into the system and saved for the future find themselves facing the loss of their home and life savings when residential care becomes necessary and unavoidable, particularly given that they cannot get that care in their own home when and if they need it. We need to step up, stand up and speak up for our older population. The Assembly needs to recognise that none of us will get out of this: it affects our grandparents and our parents, and, unfortunately, it will eventually affect everyone in the House.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I welcome Mr Wilson to the Assembly and pay tribute to William Irwin. William was a gentleman. I wish you all a happy new year.

Like Kellie, I received the correspondence from Paul McCusker, as, in fact, we all did. I have gone out on outreach a few times with the People's Kitchen and have met a lot of homeless people who have no option — seriously, none — other than to live on our streets. I also went to meet pastor Brian Madden on Saturday night with my colleague Deirdre Hargey. They all do exemplary work. There is a problem, which is that any projects with "homeless" in them are doing good work in their own right but, collectively, they are not working together for people who are really vulnerable. Independently and separately, Gerry Kelly and I went out before Christmas to see the arrangements that had been put in place. Church- and faith-based and voluntary groups are using donations to buy B&B accommodation. They are providing the services for which the Housing Executive has a statutory responsibility, and it is not working.

I am organising a meeting in Belfast city centre. I would like an MLA from each party to come and meet those who provide services to the homeless to work out what we can do better. On Saturday night, there was frost on the ground. I spoke to a woman who is four months pregnant who was sleeping in a car park. We got her registered with a GP and that, but she said that she did not feel safe in some of the temporary emergency shelters that she had been offered, which were completely inappropriate for women. There are particular challenges for women who sleep on the streets.

Statutory bodies do their best, but I see the bulk and the weight being carried by the voluntary sector. I am talking about my experience.

I am talking about groups working together to organise and coordinate the bringing of food, sleeping bags and tents to the people who need that comfort the most. If it is a test of how we, as an Assembly, look after our most vulnerable citizens, we are, frankly, failing. I will contact Members, and I look forward to them responding positively.

Mr Clarke: The past weekend stood in stark contrast to the previous weekend. The rain took away the final remnants of the snow that we woke up to last week. That snow must have come as a shock to the Department for Infrastructure, because the roads ground to a halt last week. The lack of organisation in DFI, with traffic coming to a halt, is shameful. The consequence was that schools had to close, not because they were cold but because it was unsafe to travel to them. That was particularly the case in the east of the Province: I am sure that others in the Chamber did not suffer from last week's snow as properties in the east did.

It is disappointing that the Department for Infrastructure had not planned for that event, which had, clearly, been forecast. We had had a relatively mild winter up to then, so why on earth are grit boxes empty at this stage of January? Why are there not stockpiles of grit and salt for the gritters to use on our roads? Those are reasonable questions, which the Department for Infrastructure needs to answer. There was no preparedness whatsoever. It is a shameful indictment of the Department that school principals had to make such a decision, not because of the state of the schools but because of the road conditions that the Department for Infrastructure allowed.

I was contacted during the early part of last week, as I am sure that many others were, about roads that are not part of the gritting route. Those roads have been forgotten about and abandoned entirely. In previous years, grit piles were provided for unapproved or ungritted routes; this year, there is nothing. There was no preparedness at the start of January. We have had to tell people who have contacted us that the Department is not on top of even the main routes, let alone the side roads on which some of us live. That is an indictment of the Minister for Infrastructure. They need to get their act together. We have had a mild winter, but it is possible that this will continue for another few months, and I would like assurance from the Minister that action will be taken to prevent it from happening again.

Ms Nicholl: Happy new year. I welcome Mr Wilson to the Chamber.

Last week, the headlines were dominated by the revelation that an AI feature on X — formerly known as Twitter — can be used to undress women with the click of a button. Artificial intelligence has extraordinary power. I have talked about what it can do for the good, and I am genuinely excited about its potential to transform our public services and to help the economy and healthcare for the next generation — there are so many opportunities — but we cannot ignore the reality, which is that, right now, the same technology is being used to cause harm. One of the most urgent and disturbing examples of that is the rise of so-called nudification apps and sexually explicit deepfakes. The non-consensual creation of such images is abuse: it is a form of violence that is, overwhelmingly although not exclusively, directed at women and girls. Our law needs to keep pace with what is happening. As chair of the all-party group on artificial intelligence, I believe that we have a responsibility to make sure that AI works for society, not against it.

At present, it is entirely legal to have on your phone apps for which the sole purpose is to generate sexually explicit images of real people. There is no justification for that. That is why I have started work on an amendment to the Justice Bill to ban nudification apps and to make it illegal to create non-consensual sexually explicit images, rather than its just being illegal to share them. Naomi Long has been doing important work to tackle deepfakes. In order to complete that work, however, we need to tackle the technology that enables it.

This is not an abstract issue. It already causes profound harm, and it is an especially urgent issue when it comes to children. The recent findings of the Children's Commissioner for England show a worrying rise in the use of nudification tools involving children, with clear calls for those apps to be outlawed. Protecting children and young people should be at the very centre of absolutely everything that we do.

It is not only a legal or technological challenge. This is one of the key questions that, as a politician and a mother, I am grappling with. We see on the news that politicians are exiting Twitter in droves. What I find so difficult is that there are real people behind those prompts, so it is a societal issue. Technology does not exist in vacuum; it reflects the attitudes and behaviours of the world around it. Ending abuse also means challenging misogyny, raising awareness and listening, particularly to young people, who are often the most directly affected. We need to consult on the issue and talk about it, because talking about the abuse and shining a light on it is the most powerful tool that we have.

Mrs Dillon: My statement is directly related to the previous one. It is not on AI, but it is related.

I will speak today about violence against women and girls and the easy narrative regarding that epidemic that the perpetrators are strangers, do not look or sound like us, are not our friends and family, do not play on our local sports teams and are not respected people in our community. When will people wise up? Those men are your friends, your family and your teammates; they do sound and look like you; and being respected in the community is exactly how they get away with violence against women and girls. They use their positions of trust in the community, and they use their positions of power.

If we want to combat the low reporting rates of domestic and sexual abuse, we need to change the culture in our society whereby the victim's credibility is often scrutinised more than that of the alleged perpetrator. That does not happen with any other crime. No other victims have their integrity and honesty scrutinised as though they have done something wrong by daring to report a crime. We have seen that all before when it comes to historical abuse in institutions and by religious orders and people in positions of power. They undermined the victims so that they would not be considered to be credible witnesses, even if they had had the courage to complain or report an incident at the time. Those victims have paid a high price, and current-day victims of domestic and sexual abuse will carry that same trauma throughout their lifetime.

Although we have seen some changes in the courts through the Gillen review and recommendations and there has been legislative change in the area of domestic and sexual abuse, we need to see a genuine culture shift. That starts in the Chamber. There can be no tolerance of violence against women and girls. That needs to be real and should be reflected in everything that we say and do as elected representatives. Platitudes and lip service are not good enough. We must challenge ourselves to be part of the change that will make a real difference for victims. Right now, it is easier not to report domestic and sexual violence, because the additional trauma is overwhelming for many victims. What does that say about us as a society? The easy narrative is failing women and girls every day, and we need to stop being part of it.

Mr Butler: First, I welcome Mr Wilson and remind him that he has big welly boots to fill after the loss of William Irwin. I am sure that you will all join me in wishing William all the very best in his retirement. I welcome Gareth and look forward to working with him on the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs.

I am absolutely delighted to stand here and celebrate what was an unprecedented Christmas period in Lagan Valley. It was all down to football, with two of our local clubs lifting major silverware on the same historic stage at Seaview. First, on Christmas Day, while some of us were nursing the flu and some of you were eating turkey and cake, Ballymacash Rangers secured their first ever Steel and Sons Cup win. The team showed amazing resilience, belief and composure in the face of stiff opposition. That happened under the leadership of their manager, Gary Hamilton, who is being fantastically guided by chairperson, Stuart Thompson, and has the diligent and dedicated support of the directors, led by Philip Trimble. That cup win was a landmark achievement for a club that has transformed itself since I used to kick ball against it — I have many memories of playing at the Bluebell Stadium — and is now playing at a completely different level.

During the match, Ross Hunter's early goal led to Jordan Williamson's heroics in the penalty shoot-out. It was a victory built on teamwork and character. Above all, it was powered by the unwavering loyalty of the Ballymacash supporters who follow their club across the country through every high and low, and I suspect that there will be more highs than lows in the future.

Just days after that, another fantastic team from Lagan Valley — Derriaghy Cricket Club Football Club — continued the golden run by lifting the prestigious Border Cup. Manager, Owen Forsythe, and my personal friend and chairman, Iain Webb, have built a side that reflects everything that is positive about grassroots football: commitment, discipline and pride. Goals from Lewis Higginson and Nick Beta sealed a deserved triumph and added to the club's growing legacy.

As we know, those football clubs are more than teams in our home towns and constituencies; they are pillars and a reflection of our communities. The volunteers, supporters and players give young people role models to look up to. They bring communities together, and they remind us all what local sport means. Lagan Valley could not be prouder.

Mr Gildernew: For anyone who wants to use a headset: I will speak as Gaeilige.

Ar dtús, ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh Gareth Wilson anseo agus guím athbhliain faoi mhaise daoibh go léir. Bíonn deis againn ag tús na bliana ár machnamh a dhéanamh ar an am atá thart, agus rud is tábhachtaí ná sin, ar an am atá romhainn agus bheith ag pleanáil don todhchaí mar chuid de na rúin againn don athbhliain. Is iomaí sprioc shuntasach a bhain na Gaeil amach an bhliain seo caite: ceapadh Coimisinéir Teanga; ghlac Comhairle Cathrach Bhéal Feirste beartas nua teanga; bhí Oireachtas na Samhna den scoth i mBéal Feirste; agus gheall Catherine Connolly go ndéanfaí teanga oibre Áras an Uachtaráin den Ghaeilge.

D’fhógair Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann anuraidh go mbeadh Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann ag Béal Feirste i mbliana. Éacht atá ann sin, agus cuirfidh an ócáid chéanna borradh ollmhór faoin chultúr agus faoin gheilleagar, ní hé amháin i mBéal Feirste ach ar fud an Tuaiscirt. Mar Ghaeilgeoir agus mar bhall de Chomhaltas Thír Eoghain, is maith a thuigim an tionchar cultúrtha a imríonn ár dteanga agus ár gceol ar gach duine a ghlacann leo. Cuirfear an ceol agus an cultúr saibhir s’againn i lár an aonaigh de thairbhe an Fhleadh a bheith ag teacht go Béal Feirste, agus beidh sí ina hócáid shuntasach ealaíne agus shóisialta chomh maith. Níl an bhliain úr ach ina tús. Tá am go leor ann go fóill le bheith ag freastal ar rang, le huirlis a fhoghlaim agus le suim a chur sa stair shaibhir againn. Ná fágtar síos siar san athbheochan sibh — bígí linn agus bainaigí sult as ár gcultúr.

Ms Forsythe: Happy new year, Mr Speaker. I, too, welcome my colleague Gareth Wilson to the Chamber.

Last week, when we were in recess and without agreement from the Executive, the Finance Minister issued a written ministerial statement outlining his proposals for a multi-year Budget. It was disappointing that he issued that without agreement and outside the opportunity for scrutiny, setting up a week-long media platform on which he distanced himself from the outworkings of the proposals, which fail to prioritise front-line services. Let me be clear: the draft Budget is John O'Dowd's Budget. It is a Sinn Féin Budget that has not been agreed on and is not supported by the DUP. It fails to put essential public services first. We recognise the very real financial pressures faced in Northern Ireland. The choices and allocations set out by the Sinn Féin Finance Minister are deeply flawed and will require significant changes to gain our support.

Sinn Féin joined other Executive parties in agreeing the Programme for Government and its key priorities, yet now it is failing to fund it. Childcare is a huge issue for our working families and the economy of Northern Ireland, and it is an agreed priority in the Programme for Government, yet Sinn Féin has stopped progress on childcare by applying a real-time cut to its funding. We have repeatedly heard Sinn Féin in the Republic of Ireland blast the Irish Government about social housing, and we have an agreed priority to deliver housing in Northern Ireland, yet Sinn Féin is not providing the funding to enable the Programme for Government housing targets to be delivered.

In 2025, when the Communities Minister brought forward an anti-poverty strategy, it was slammed by Sinn Féin, but that strategy has no funding in the proposals. For a party that campaigns in support of workers, housing and childcare, it is shocking that it fails to provide funding allocations to deliver those strategies. We very much welcome ring-fencing for waiting lists, but that area needs to remain ring-fenced unlike in previous years. We need to see the efficiencies driven by Budget proposals, which need to be aligned with Programme for Government priorities. Front-line services must be prioritised.

A multi-year Budget is not a "prize", as John O'Dowd said, if it is delivered just to tick a box. It needs to mean more than that. We want to see a multi-year Budget in place to enable longer-term strategic planning, but it must be realistic and achievable and put essential public services first to ensure that taxpayers' money is used efficiently and delivers for families and communities across Northern Ireland. As we enter the eight-week consultation period, I encourage members of the public and all organisations to respond to ensure that any Budget brought forward delivers, as the Programme for Government says, "what matters most" to people and communities in Northern Ireland.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That brings to an end Members' statements.

Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I have a point of order on the vote that is about to take place now. In 'New Decade, New Approach', at point 2.2.4 of annex B, it states that a petition of concern would not be applicable for a motion that had:

That provision in 'New Decade, New Approach' was then supposed to be transcribed into the Standing Orders of the Assembly. That was provided for in the Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Act 2022. Therefore, I would like to understand why the motion, which, as far as I am aware, does not have any express legal or procedural effect, is eligible for a petition of concern.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I appreciate your point of order, but you are factually incorrect. The Standing Orders have not been brought in yet regarding that Act. It is a matter for the Procedures Committee. I think that you have members on that Committee, so I advise you to use that route, rather than this route.

Mr O'Toole: Further to that point of order —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: There is no further point of order to something that is not a point of order.

Mr O'Toole: On a point of order.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: It needs to be a new point of order. Go ahead.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate that. It is a new point of order, but it is further to the —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: No, it is not, but go ahead.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you for that clarification. Can the Speaker's Office clarify whether, had Standing Orders been updated, as I think most people would have expected them to be, given that the Act was passed several years ago, would the petition of concern have been legally allowed?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I will pass your concerns on to the Speaker, but my understanding — I will repeat it to you — is that it still has to go through the Procedures Committee. However, for complete clarity and transparency, I will refer your concerns to the Speaker, and I imagine that you will raise the same thing through your members on the Procedures Committee.

The petition of concern that was presented on Monday 8 December 2025 in relation to the vote on the motion on observer status in the European Parliament was subsequently confirmed on 22 December 2025.

In accordance with section 42 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, if the petition is presented by 30 members, the vote on the matter requires cross-community support. Today is the first opportunity that the Assembly has had to vote on the motion, which has been amended. There will be no further debate on the motion today. If that is clear, I will put the Question on the motion as amended.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: As cross-community support has not been achieved and the motion as amended has been negatived, we move on.

Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Yes, certainly.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate you taking the point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, and the advice that you gave earlier. Further to that, I want to understand whether the vote that we have just had has any point at all, given that the law was changed in 2022 to prevent votes like the one that we have just had taking place. If the vote took place under unreformed law, is the Assembly in breach of the Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Act 2022 because we have not updated our Standing Orders? Further to that, are we not, if that is the case, creating a farce for the public by getting Ministers down here to vote on a petition of concern vote that should not have happened under the law as it stands?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: It is good to see your concern for Ministers as leader of the Opposition.

Mr O'Toole: And the Opposition too.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Yes, absolutely. As I said, Matthew, because the Standing Order has not been brought in, it has no bearing. However, as I advised you, if, as I suspect, you go to the Speaker, as you should, do it in writing to seek transparency and accountability about what the next steps are and through your membership of the Procedures Committee.

If we are settled on that, we move on.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: John Blair has sought leave to present a public petition in accordance with Standing Order 22. The Member will have up to three minutes to speak.

Mr Blair: I rise to bring a public petition on behalf of the residents of Doagh to the House. The petition raises serious concerns on behalf of the undersigned individuals, who respectfully request the installation of a pedestrian crossing at Station Road, Doagh. The petition comes from the 260 people who have signed it and me, as South Antrim MLA.

The reasons for the request are as follows. The current lack of a designated crossing point puts pedestrians, including children, elderly residents and people with disabilities, at significant risk when attempting to cross the road. The area experiences heavy pedestrian movement due to nearby schools, a play area, shops and public transport stops. The road is used frequently by vehicles, including heavy goods vehicles, making it difficult for pedestrians to cross safely, particularly at peak times. In the past few decades, the population of Doagh has risen considerably, as the census and electoral roll will show. Unfortunately, the road infrastructure, including the infrastructure to ensure safe crossing, remains largely unchanged. There is the likelihood of near misses or accidents involving pedestrians and motor vehicles at that location. A pedestrian crossing would encourage walking, promote healthier lifestyles and improve accessibility for all members of the community.

Those who have signed the petition urge the Department for Infrastructure to conduct a safety assessment of the location, ensuring consideration of peak times and school times, and install a clearly marked pedestrian crossing with appropriate signage and, if possible, traffic-calming measures, such as flashing lights or speed ramps. The petition requests those crucial elements. Consideration should also be given to additional safety features such as dropped kerbs for wheelchair and stroller access. The issue demands the Department's urgent attention. We look forward to working collectively for prompt action to improve the safety of pedestrians and road users in Doagh.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, John. I will forward your petition to the Minister for Infrastructure and send a copy to the Committee for Infrastructure.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members, the next item of business is a statement from the Minister of Finance. I propose to suspend the sitting until Question Time at 2.00 pm, after which we will hear the statement from the Minister of Finance. The sitting is, by leave, suspended.

Mr Speaker: Question No 4 has been withdrawn.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): The Education Authority (EA) is reviewing its school transport provision to identify any options to reduce costs. My officials are actively supporting that work. As part of the process, equality issues are being carefully considered to understand the potential impact of any proposals. Further consultation may be needed before options are finalised.

I fully recognise that some children have significant needs. I do not underestimate how challenging it is to meet those needs whilst ensuring that costs remain reasonable and sustainable. Every child with a statement of SEN has their needs identified in the EA statutory assessment and review process. If additional transport needs are identified during a child's assessment, transport assistance must be arranged through the most suitable means available, ensuring that that provision is compatible with the efficient use of resources. However, it can be challenging to meet each child's needs whilst managing costs responsibly.

Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for his answer. The Minister will agree that access to education is a fundamental human right. It is also underpinned by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). For children with complex needs and disabilities, the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) will kick in, but value for money is also important. Will the Minister maybe look at the option that I was dealing with with Lagan Valley Rural Transport? There are options out there, but, fundamentally, access to appropriate education is the priority in everything that we do here.

Mr Givan: I thank Mr Butler for the question. I see that he is number one and Mr Burrows is number two on the list for questions today. Maybe that is a harbinger of things to come: time will tell. Maybe this is the closest that we will get to a hustings debate: I do not know. We will have to wait and see.

The Member raises important questions and highlights the impressive work that Lagan Valley Rural Transport carries out in our constituency. That is certainly an area in which there can be engagement between the EA and community transport groups. If provision can be harnessed through that process, I would certainly encourage that.

The Member is right: it is critical that we provide children with access to education. Specialist provisions increasingly being located outside local communities creates further pressure on transportation costs. If the options for a child are to travel a considerable distance or not to travel at all because of the cost, we will have to meet the cost. Some children who need a placement do not have provision in their local community, which leads to increased transport costs. However, it is vital that that delivers value for money. That is why the EA has carried out a review of its contracts and engaged with organisations in the taxi industry on those contracts. We must ensure, where possible, the efficient and effective use of taxpayers' money.

Mr Baker: Minister, can you guarantee that no child will be impacted? A letter went out just before Christmas asking for a 10% cut. Can you guarantee that, should a taxi man give back their run for it to go back out for procurement, no child will miss a day of school because of that?

Mr Givan: The process to date has not led to any contract being returned by a provider. The EA engaged with operators and some of the other organisations. A number of them came forward to engage on their contracts. There is ongoing engagement, but, to date, no contract has been returned. There needs to be provision for transport, so, were a contract to be returned, it would need to be tendered, and there would be an opportunity for it to be replaced. I certainly would not want there to be a gap in provision if such circumstances materialised, but, to date, no contract has been returned.

Mr Kingston: I have heard differing claims about what is paid to taxi drivers to transport children: some rates are exceptionally high, and others are more modest. Through the review that the Minister is pushing the EA to carry out, will he seek to ensure that rates are standardised as well as that they provide good value to public purse?

Mr Givan: The benchmark used by the EA is the Department for Infrastructure rate for metered journeys of £1·86 to £2·03 per mile. Those figures are set out in legislation — they were revised in December 2023 to take account of rising fuel costs and other taxi industry pressures — but there are contracts in place under which the rate is significantly higher. When I look at the rationale for that, however, I see that, in determining a fare for a school run, taxi operators need to take account of multiple stops, non-continuous runs and significant repositioning of what are called "dead miles", when there are no passengers. There is no straight, like-for-like comparison between the transportation of children, especially those with special needs, and a normal taxi fare, such as when you call up a taxi to get from A to B.

It is an important issue. The EA is carrying out an exercise to ensure that there is effective use of public resources when it comes to that funding, but I recognise that some circumstances are unique to provision for children with special educational needs. My main concern is to make sure that children get to school, but, where we can make that more efficient and effective for the taxpayer, we should do so.

Mrs Guy: There has been significant focus on the cost of school transport and of taxis in particular, which has caused concern, given the budget pressures in Education. Given the huge overspend in Education, will the Minister commit to a zero-based budgeting process to ensure that every piece of spending is justified?

Mr Givan: The broader question that the Member raises is an important one. Almost 95,000 pupils in Northern Ireland receive some transport assistance. That is the most generous provision of anywhere in the United Kingdom. It accounts for £140 million in the 2024-25 financial year. That is significant expenditure. When Members ask me to review that, it is often with a view to increasing rather than reducing the accessibility of transportation. One of the biggest increases in expenditure has been in special educational needs provision; that has led to exponential growth.

Transport assistance is also used to underpin parental choice. When it comes to choosing a school, whether controlled, Catholic maintained, integrated or Irish-medium, the transportation policy incentivises parental choice, as opposed to saying, "If you do not go to your nearest school, irrespective of the sector, you will not be funded".

All of that is underpinned by legislation, so making changes would require that debate and discussion. Given the financial pressures that are crystallising not just in my Department but across the Executive, we need to have those debates, but we recognise that it would take time to make those changes and for them to have an impact.

Mr Givan: I can confirm that, as previously advised, the school uniform guidelines have been updated to clarify that all pupils are to be permitted to wear a non-branded coat. That has always been the intention. Schools can require a range of colours but not a branded coat, and they cannot require a coat with school-specific branding. The legal rights are achieved through a combination of the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill and the guidelines. The Bill places a legal duty on schools to adhere to the guidelines when devising, reviewing, implementing and enforcing their uniform policy. That means that schools must adhere to the requirements in the guidelines, which include permitting non-branded coats for all pupils. Should schools not do so or should they seek to penalise a pupil for not following the school uniform policy because of affordability, my Department can and will issue a legal direction to ensure full compliance.

The day after the Bill receives Royal Assent, it will come into operation, and the updated guidelines will formally issue to schools. Schools have already had sight of the guidelines and are aware that their uniform policies for the 2026-27 school year must comply with them.

Mr Burrows: I look forward to reading the final version of the guidelines. It is an example of practical politics that works for our people that pupils will have the right to wear a coat of their choice to school. On the issue of practical politics and school uniforms, will the Minister give an assurance that he supports the right of girls who wish to wear trousers to school to do so, just as ladies can do in workplaces up and down the country?

Mr Givan: I thank Mr Burrows for his supplementary question and wish him well in the weeks ahead. I made a comment earlier about Mr Butler being number one today, and Mr Burrows is now number two. We wait to see whether Mr Butler will hand in his wings and give the Member his dream shot at being the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party. If he does, I wish him well in his endeavours.

The Member asked a question about the guidelines, and it is one that we have referred to on a number of occasions. The guidance now empowers pupils, particularly young ones, to make the case for changes. In no way does it prohibit schools from putting in place provision for girls to wear trousers. I was always clear that there was a balance to be struck in respecting the autonomy of individual schools to devise their school uniform policy. They now have to consult and engage with their pupils. Pupils, as well as parents, can raise their voice, and I very much encourage girls to do that. They should make their case. Again, we struck a balance that meant that schools were to make those decisions on their uniform. While some schools have already taken a decision, meaning that there is now a choice to wear a skirt or trousers, others have not taken that position to date. The legislation and the guidelines enhance the opportunity for that change to take place. Schools can make such changes, and I encourage people, particularly pupils, to engage in the policy consultation process in order to devise the most appropriate school uniform policy for them.

Mrs Mason: Will the Minister assure parents that the school uniform legislation will reduce costs? For example, will a school uniform that cost £500 last year cost much less this year?

Mr Givan: There is already evidence of schools having made changes. An example of that is where schools have had an honours blazer for a particular recognition. For pupils to get that recognition, a different type of uniform had to be bought, and it was often more expensive. Without naming it, in one of the schools that I have visited, that change is already being made to the school uniform policy, which will have a positive impact on cost.

At the heart of the legislation that we all passed was the affordability and practicality of the school uniform. It will drive down some of the unnecessary costs. We now have clear monitoring processes in place as a result of the legislation. We will get the data and be able to measure the impact that the legislation has had. I am confident that it will have an impact on affordability, but, importantly, the information will be there to allow us to scrutinise the data and see where we need to make changes. The guidance has the adaptability to be updated, so we can make changes through guidance rather than having to return to primary legislation.

The other aspect is that we will consult on the potential introduction of a capped cost. That is something that we will continue to engage on, giving us an opportunity to consider whether it would be an effective means of helping to reduce costs.

Mr Bradley: What is the process for legally challenging schools if they do not adhere to the guidelines?

Mr Givan: Where a complaint comes in about a school not following the guidance, that complaint can be investigated. Ultimately, the Department will consider the information and issue a direction.

Assembly colleagues included a provision in the legislation to name a school if it did not follow the provisions, so public pressure would come to bear if a school was not complying with the direction. If there was a legal challenge — because a judicial review could, ultimately, be taken — a judicial review would fall upon the Department as to whether or not it deemed it appropriate to issue a direction, as opposed a judicial review being taken against a school. It is open to judicial oversight in that respect. I believe that those are the areas with grounds on which it would be tested in the courts. We hope, however, that we will never get to a stage when it needs to be taken to court. That is why the guidance has statutory underpinning, and I believe that those who will operate it will do so in good faith.

Mr McNulty: Minister, you said that guidelines on school uniform rights have been revised, yet many parents of children with ASD still say that rigid uniform policies are causing anxiety and exclusion. Why does your Department still lack clear and enforceable protections for those with sensory needs?

Mr Givan: I challenge the claim that we do not have clear guidance in place now. We do. Royal Assent is imminent, and the guidance will therefore have legal effect. When it comes to designing a school uniform, there is now a much clearer framework with which schools need to engage when it comes to practicality and affordability. When designing uniforms, all of that should be taken into account for children with additional needs.

Let us allow the guidance to take effect. However, we have clear monitoring capacity to make sure that it is effective. We have utilised and will harness the role of the Education and Training Inspectorate, so an inspection process will be able to look at how schools carry out their policy development and implementation. That should give confidence to some of the parents whom the Member mentioned, as there will be a way to challenge schools on how the guidelines are to be interpreted and implemented.

Mr Givan: The total maintenance costs for Bushmills Education Centre since its closure in 2017 to the present day have been approximately £39,000.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you. Minister. The centre's closure in 2017 was a massive loss. However, given the admirable new commitments by the Scottish Government in their Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill, what percentage of children in Northern Ireland have the opportunity to engage in an outdoor education experience?

Mr Givan: I do not have that information to hand. What I can say to the Member is that there are increasing opportunities in our schools to have outdoor learning experiences, not least through the Forest School programme and Eco-Schools, as well as through parts of the curriculum that we are updating and refreshing, such as the world around us.

The Education Authority is looking at the Bushmills Education Centre in the context of its wider school estate. If capital funding were to become available for youth work, it could be used to redevelop that facility for the Causeway Coast and Glens youth offices and an Oasis centre for young people aged between four and 25 years. That is entirely subject to capital funding being available, but plans are still in place for ways in which that site could be used for young people in the future.

Mr Brooks: The Minister mentioned capital funding for youth work. Will he give us an overview of the current position with that?

Mr Givan: We continue to face significant capital pressures, and no funding has been available to progress any youth capital schemes for the voluntary or statutory sector since 2023. Given the budgetary pressures that exist, work on new youth facilities is not being taken forward at this time. However, I continue to make the case for additional — substantial — capital investment in educational infrastructure, including youth-focused settings, to the extent that I corresponded with the Finance Minister. I suggested that we could have had a special ring-fenced youth capital programme that would help to take forward a lot of the youth projects in Members' constituencies. However, that was turned down. Rather, it is to be dealt with within the Department of Education's baseline capital facilities budget, which, as Members know, is wholly and inadequately funded to meet the need.

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for the question. The 2024 life and times survey finding that 55% of adults would prefer an integrated school is a valuable indicator of public appetite for integrated education. While such attitudinal evidence is important, appetite is not the same as demonstrated admissions demand. Parental choices will continue to be shaped by proximity, transport, capacity and the quality of provision available in each locality.

My statutory duty is to encourage, facilitate and support integrated education. That is why, following consultation, I have published Vision 2030, which is our strengthened strategy and action plan that includes clear targets, measurable benchmarks and commitments to transparency. The Department is drawing together multiple evidence sources to build a more accurate picture of demand at a local level. That work is already identifying areas where unmet demand may exist.

Where evidence demonstrates a sustainable case for change and statutory criteria are met, I will support new provision and school transformation. I have instructed officials to work closely with the Education Authority and the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education (NICIE) to ensure that communities with emerging or unmet demand are engaged early and that credible proposals for increased integrated provision are developed. That approach will also consider practical barriers such as oversubscription, localised shortfalls in places and geographic access. I will ensure that decisions are evidence-led and balanced and that we continue to deliver high-quality education for every child.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for the answer provided. It is clear to me that mid-Down, which serves a large part of my Strangford constituency, is one area that ticks all the boxes in demonstrating demand for integrated education. Can the Minister provide an update on what action he is taking to progress that project?

Mr Givan: Obviously, when it comes to provision, many different factors need to be taken into account. We will look at not just the information that the Member has highlighted but what over-provision there may be and whether there is capacity. What we do not want to do — this is not related specifically to the school that the Member has referenced — is provide over-provision where there is already capacity, because you will just be moving provision from one school to another and will have too many places. That is not a sustainable financial position for us when it comes to those types of decisions.

I am happy to provide the Member with a further update on the school that he has referenced. I have engaged with my officials on that particular school. I am happy to give the Member a more detailed response in writing.

Mr Brett: While some parties in the Chamber are obsessed with one particular sector of our education system, I know that the Minister shares my obsession with ensuring that every child has the best possible education that they can receive. Does the Minister agree that the facts are clear: our controlled sector provides some of the most integrated education in the Province; that, just because a school does not have a title above its door saying "Integrated", that does not mean that it is not an integrated school; and that the demand shown in the life and times survey is met by our excellent controlled schools?

Mr Givan: The Member raises really important points when it comes to the diversity that exists across our school sectors, not least the controlled sector. The highest level of diversity is reflected in the population of controlled schools. We could point to many examples where controlled schools are more integrated than those that are officially integrated. I know that principals feel, often to their frustration, that that fact is neglected by those who advocate for integration with a capital "I". Recently, I met Minister Patrick in the Northern Ireland Office. When we were talking about the integrated sector, I made the point about how we support shared education across our different school sectors, how we promote integration with a small "i" in all our schools and how the Northern Ireland Office can help facilitate that. That is why I welcome his commitment to attend and visit a number of schools with me in the near future. That will enable the UK Government to understand that there are high levels of integration across sectors and that, in particular, there is a high level of diversity within our controlled sector.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, one of the strategic aims set out in the strategy that you published last year is about the:

However, from your previous answers, it sounds as if you think that the integrated ethos, which is more than simply a mixing of the numbers of pupils, is somehow a bit of a put-up job — a bit of a con job — or that there is something a bit fraudulent about it. In your strategy, you have said that you want to develop and protect the integrated ethos. What do you think it is? Do you think it is a real thing? Do you understand why it is distinct from other sectors?

Mr Givan: I attended New-Bridge Integrated College, just before Christmas. I believed very much that it was a real thing due to the wide diversity of sporting and cultural activities in which the children there were being given an opportunity to participate. It was also able to demonstrate a balanced 40:40:20 split when it came to the demographics. It was at pains to make the case to me that it was integrated not just in name but when it came to pupil catchment, enrolment and the diversity of curricular activities that it provided. That is not the case in every integrated school. Often, those that have transformed from controlled to controlled integrated have not been able to follow that through when it comes to the diversity of pupil enrolment. There is a challenge there.

New schools have been able to demonstrate what many would regard as the traditional integrated-type school ethos. However, where schools have transformed, not only has it not worked, on a number of occasions, but there have been examples of where the minority community has decreased rather than increased. That is a honest conversation to be had. It is one that I had recently with Integrated AlumNI, when we talked about how we can promote the integrated ethos within our schools. I do not believe that there is any school in Northern Ireland, from any sector, be that Irish-medium, Catholic maintained or controlled, that practises and teaches a segregated approach to its pupils. They are not teaching their children that segregation is a good thing. We need to move the debate away from integrated being regarded as being inclusive and, if you are not integrated, somehow, you are exclusive and the problem. That is not the case.

Mr Givan: I will make an announcement on the RE syllabus, including interim guidance, in coming weeks. The Supreme Court judgement in the matter of JR87 and another requires careful and thorough consideration, supported by detailed legal advice, to ensure that any response is proportionate, legally sound and educationally appropriate.

It is important to note that the Supreme Court did not strike down the existing legislation. The judgement also confirmed that schools may lawfully teach religious education in line with the Department's core syllabus, provided that they include additional material within the curriculum. The Supreme Court made it clear that the case was not about secularism or removing religion from our education system. The case was not about whether Christianity should be the main or primary faith that pupils learn about in schools in Northern Ireland. Historically and today, Christianity is the most important religion in Northern Ireland, and that reality will continue to be reflected in our curriculum.

There was also no challenge in the case to the principle that collective worship in schools in Northern Ireland may focus on the Christian religion or that, in Catholic maintained schools, the focus of collective worship may reflect the distinctive character of the Catholic tradition.

Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for that answer. Given that the current legislation states that RE in schools must be based on the Holy Scripture, will the Minister need to amend the legislation to ensure that RE is inclusive for all, given the recent ruling?

Mr Givan: Not in respect of the references to Holy Scripture as the basis upon which religious education will be dealt. Ultimately, the syllabus and responsibility for the RE curriculum rests with my Department. It is my intention to make announcements within the next number of weeks on the process that we will follow in looking at the curriculum and ensuring that the Supreme Court judgement is followed. I will, therefore, be able to update the House in more detail on next steps within the next number of weeks.

Mr Harvey: Will the Minister clarify who will be responsible for developing the revised religious education syllabus?

Mr Givan: In addition to what I said to Mr Blair, legal responsibility for the syllabus ultimately rests with the Department. The process of curriculum development is timely; we are carrying out a curriculum review across every subject as part of our transformation of the education system. In that respect, RE will be updated as well. The review will be informed by professional advice and will focus firmly on the needs of pupils and the delivery of high-quality teaching and learning in schools. Consideration will be given to a wider range of views during the drafting process, including those of local Church representatives and representatives of teachers, academics and young people. Further details of the approach and governance arrangements will be set out as the review process moves forward.

Mr Speaker: We move on to topical questions.

Ms Hunter: As my question pertains to AI ethics, I declare an interest, as I sit on an AI ethics board outside my role as an MLA.

Mr Givan: I share the Member's sentiment and justified outrage at how AI is being used in that fashion, which is wholly inappropriate and to be condemned. The Member will know that I have been to the fore in restricting access to smartphones. We introduced a prohibition on smartphones being brought to primary school and said that, where they are brought to post-primary school, they should not be accessible during school hours. That is something that all schools should be following. Indeed, I took matters further by introducing a pilot scheme to enforce the restrictions. I was delighted to hear about the outworkings of that at St Ronan's College in Lurgan, which is one of the largest schools in Northern Ireland. The feedback from there indicates that the pilot has had a transformative impact on protecting young people from the inappropriate use of smartphone technology.

The Member raised a separate point about what the EA should do when it comes to schools publishing material. All parents are involved in giving or withholding permission for the use of photographic material of children in any publications that a school posts on social media such as Facebook. These are emerging issues, however, that need to be kept constantly under review.

Ms Hunter: Thank you, Minister, for your detailed answer. We share the goal of keeping our kids safe in the classroom and online. On the back of that, will you commit to having discussions with schools and school leaders about educating and informing our young people about harmful AI-generated content and even, perhaps, include in the curriculum review some mandatory technology talk to ensure that our kids are really safe when they use technology, which is ever advancing?

Mr Givan: I based the updated guidance for schools about using smartphones on their premises on safeguarding provisions for the protection of children and young people. That underpins the policy approach, so it is only right that posting material online is viewed in a safeguarding context and that any measures that schools put in place are there, ultimately, to protect our children and young people.

All of us are constantly grappling with the issue, as technology — so people say — advances. However, this is not about a technological advance but an inappropriate use of technology, and we need to continue to review it in order to see what more we can do to protect our children and young people.

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for that question. The education system continues to face the unavoidable cost pressures and rising service demands associated with delivering its statutory and policy obligations. Those are not fully addressed by the current Budget. Under the proposed allocations, my Department would be required to make savings of approximately £826 million next year, savings of just over £1 billion in 2027-28 and savings of £1·15 billion in 2028-29. Those reductions are, simply, not achievable, and the figures do not include the impact of any potential reductions to the forecasted overspend of around £253 million in 2025-26.

Given that approximately 82% of the Education budget is spent on staffing, there is no reasonable prospect of living within the proposed allocation without there being compulsory redundancies for thousands of teachers and support staff, which would devastate educational outcomes and undermine the very fabric of our system. It would require dedicated in-year redundancy funding at a level that would be similar to the necessary savings. If the proposed Budget were to proceed, without redundancies being implemented, we would be left with no choice but to make major cuts to schemes that families and communities rely on, including home-to-school transport, free school meals, school uniform grants, youth services and the extended-schools programme. The Northern Ireland childcare subsidy scheme would also be unsustainable. Even after implementing cuts of that magnitude, the Department would fall far short of the required savings. That stark reality demonstrates that the proposed Budget is simply undeliverable. The Finance Minister's Budget document fails to highlight that.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Minister. One of the most vulnerable sectors of our school population is children with special educational needs. Over recent years, there has been a huge increase in the need for capital spending and spending on teaching to facilitate those children's needs. Will you outline what spending has been incurred already and projections for the future? What impact would the draft Sinn Féin Budget have?

Mr Givan: The Member is right. When it comes to SEN, those things are not luxuries; they are legally underpinned and therefore statutory. SEN provision is statutorily led.

SEN expenditure increased from being 13% of the overall Education budget in 2017-18 to 21% in 2024-25. The number of children with SEN statements rose by 64%, alongside an increase of 30% in the number of children who attend special schools. Expenditure on providing support for children and young people with SEN or a disability increased from £254 million in 2017 to £670 million in 2024-25. That is an increase of 164% over seven years. Expenditure on SEN is forecast to be £826 million in 2025-26. That has put significant pressure on the EA's budget and on the wider school system. The expenditure trend is unsustainable: if it continues, expenditure will reach £1·8 billion by 2029-2030. That is why we need to look at how SEN operates. We also, however, need a realistic Budget.

Mr Givan: I am not sure of the detail for Holy Trinity in particular. There are around 114 major capital projects in the Department of Education's programme, around 40 of which have been completed. Other projects are at various stages of the procurement exercises and are subject to the allocation of funding. Of the 114 projects, 24 have not advanced at all, because there is not the budget for them to advance. I am not across the detail of Holy Trinity, but I will be happy to engage with the Member directly to provide a response.

Miss Dolan: Thank you, Minister. I would appreciate that. Given the well-documented condition of the existing school buildings and the ongoing impact on pupils and staff, can you give me an assurance that you will prioritise that project in Enniskillen?

Mr Givan: The Member raises, rightly, from her constituency perspective, a school that needs that support. Members, not just in her party but across the Chamber, raise with me particular needs when it comes to the provision of capital expenditure. It is right that Members do that, but we can only provide the appropriate support when funding is available and given to the Department. That is why we are making the case for increased capital expenditure to allow us to carry out the important work that we need to do in updating the school estate and creating the necessary provision. I will write formally to the Member with an update on the school that she referenced.

Mr Givan: There are two points to make. First, the Member is right that any wastage needs to be dealt with. The EA has been looking at one aspect of that — the transportation costs associated with taxis and so on — and it will continue to look at achieving the most efficient use of resources. However, we cannot then have a scenario in which I am being told by the Finance Minister, who is from the Member's party, that I need to drill down on costs and reduce what I am spending. We spend £140 million on transport, and, if we were to change the transport policy to make it more expansive, additional resource would be required. If we are going to advocate for policy change to increase provision, that needs to be followed by the financial allocations with which to do it. On the one hand, I have a Sinn Féin Member here saying, "Spend more" but, on the other, a Sinn Féin Finance Minister saying, "Spend less" and not giving me the funding that I need. You cannot have both.

Ms Sheerin: Minister, if you had listened correctly, you would have heard me asking you to address the wastage. A lot of the time, the problem is cost per journey.

Following a request from a school in my constituency — St John Bosco Primary School in Ballynease — I recently wrote to your Department to ask about transport for swimming lessons. That school was advised to use the process form to apply for that transport but was told that there was no further availability. The school then had to pay privately at a cost of £220 for a half-an-hour round trip. After receiving a response from your Department, I was told to use the same booking form that the school had previously used. Will you look at that case to ensure that the pupils at St John Bosco in Ballynease are able to access swimming lessons as per the curriculum?

Mr Givan: I did hear the Member, and that is why I gave the response. Maybe the Member did not appreciate that response. Where there is wastage, it needs to be drilled down into. The Education Authority is operationally responsible for the transport contracts, and it has engaged in a process to do that. Some Members are questioning whether that should be happening and rightly want to make sure that the way in which that is handled is not to the detriment of children, which it should not be.

I have a lot of sympathy with the point that the Member makes. A number of schools have said to me that they would like to participate more in Open Farm Weekend, for example, to allow their children to experience the rural way of life, but all of that requires budgetary cover. There is not budgetary cover for me to meet the statutory transport costs and then give funding for what is not a statutory requirement, such as the example that the Member raised. There simply is not the finance to do that. We are dealing with very constrained financially challenging times. Whilst we would all like to do that, we ultimately have to make decisions, and my decision is to prioritise the statutory requirements and children with special educational needs.

Mr Givan: We were able to make a formal offer on teachers' pay through the employers to the trade unions last week. That process is being taken forward by the trade unions through their consultation process. I trust that the process will come to a satisfactory conclusion and that we will be able to formally implement the 4% increase in teachers' pay and backdate it to 1 September 2025, which is the starting point for their financial year when it comes to pay. However, progress has been made.

That is a demonstration of the ongoing work to normalise industrial relations. It is the right decision to cover the teachers' pay award, and I trust that we will be able to implement it formally in the next number of weeks.

Mr Brooks: The other aspect that will have been raised with the Minister is workload: can he give me an update on the independent report on teachers' workload?

Mr Givan: As part of resolving last year's pay negotiations, the issue of teacher workload came through clearly. Despite the fact that various reports are in place, I commissioned and established a working group, which was led by a former permanent secretary of the Department of Education, Paul Sweeney. Extensive consultation was carried out, and a report is now with me that contains clear recommendations. That is a demonstration of how we can seek to address workload-related issues and allow teachers to do what they want to do, which is teach, but resolving teachers' pay will also recognise their important contribution and the role that they play. I therefore hope that we can make progress with that report on teachers' workload, and I will update the House in due course.

Mr Speaker: We move on to questions to the Minister of Finance.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): Land and Property Services (LPS) has robust processes and procedures in place for the collection and recovery of rates and is committed to collecting all unpaid rates and takes proactive steps to do so. They include ongoing billing; notifications, emails and text messages; direct contact with ratepayers via telephone calls; the initiation of legal recovery actions; and discussion and agreement on payment plans over extended periods. A failure to engage on the contact made by LPS and persistent non-payment will result in legal recovery actions.

I can confirm that the outstanding balance of £5,018·82 remains payable for 9-11 Church Street, Ballymena. It is currently being pursued through ongoing rate collection processes. The payment of rates helps fund the vital public services on which our citizens and businesses rely.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much for the answer. The premises were funded by public money, so at what stage will the names of those who are responsible for paying the money in the name of Ballymena Advice Centre be publicised? I have constituents the length and breadth of North Antrim who are hounded by LPS to pay their debts and their outstanding rate balance, yet it appears that this special case has been given undue leeway.

Mr Speaker: Minister.

Mr Gaston: I urge the Minister to take every option and opportunity open to him to ensure that the money is recouped and that the names of those responsible are publicised.

Mr O'Dowd: The case is not being dealt with differently from any other case of outstanding moneys owed to LPS. I assure the Member that the case has not been given special treatment. We have to be careful about naming those responsible for the payment of outstanding debts because of legal requirements, legal protections and the legal entitlements of all involved. I again emphasise, however, that the case is not being dealt with differently from any other case.

Ms Mulholland: It is disgraceful that, at a time when public services are stretched and ratepayers are under so much strain, a rates bill for an office connected to a political party has gone unpaid for years. Given that the unpaid rates bill is linked to a particular political party and rather than naming the individuals, can the Minister outline whether the onus is on the political party to pay it?

Mr O'Dowd: As I said, there may well be legal proceedings under way, so I am somewhat constrained in what I can say. My understanding is that the premises have been managed by a company. The individuals in the company may well be associated with a political party, but my understanding is that the bill is in the name of a company.

Mr O'Dowd: In the December monitoring round, as well as providing over £100 million of resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) to help deliver pay awards for a number of groups of public-sector workers, I secured Executive agreement to allocate £162 million for capital investment, which will deliver real improvements to public services and infrastructure. Over £59 million of that capital spend was provided for the water service, road maintenance, safety improvements and rail projects. That capital investment will drive forward economic growth and enhance connectivity.

Almost £30 million of additional investment was provided for social housing. That, along with earlier funding allocations, will contribute to 1,750 new social homes being delivered, helping to address housing need locally. In healthcare, an additional £25 million will be invested in IT and the healthcare estate. Some £22 million was secured for investment in schools and education, including funding for Irish-medium facilities, and a further £12·6 million was provided to DFE for investment in higher and further education.

Those capital allocations reflect our Programme for Government commitment to "Doing What Matters Most", by investing in health, education, infrastructure and housing.

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

What capital allocations were made to the Department for Infrastructure? How will that funding be utilised?

Mr O'Dowd: The Department for Infrastructure was allocated £59·8 million to deliver essential improvements to our roads, transport and water services. That includes £13·2 million for road maintenance; £5 million to deliver eight new trains and track improvements, enhancing connectivity across the island of Ireland by improving the Belfast to Dublin Enterprise service; and £38·1 million investment across a range of water, transport and roads capital projects. Those allocations and previous funding allocations since autumn 2024 have contributed to the unlocking of waste water capacity for over 5,000 properties across the North, supporting future housing and wider economic development.

Mr McMurray: Does the Minister envisage any further monitoring rounds taking place prior to the end of the financial year?

Mr O'Dowd: One more fiscal event has yet to take place in Westminster: the Supplementaries. I expect some funding from that, but I do not expect major investment to come this way.

Mr Carroll: Do you have any concerns about the Communities Minister's social housing allocations? His Department said that an initial capital allocation of £168 million would build 1,000 social homes. He went on to say that an extra £30 million from the December monitoring round would build 750 new homes. Obviously, the maths do not add up.

Mr O'Dowd: It would be up to the Communities Minister to reassure you about the calculations and figures and how they deliver the quantum of housing in each case. There may be different circumstances around site ownership and the stage of development of programmes etc.

Mr McNulty: Whether it is Casement Park, the A5, the A1 junctions, the new children's hospital, the new maternity hospital, all-island rail upgrades, lack of investment in vital waste water infrastructure — I could go on and on — failure to plan and deliver investment has cost us dearly. When will the investment strategy finally be delivered?

Mr O'Dowd: The investment strategy is an Executive document. I assume that it will be up to the First Minister and deputy First Minister to announce when it will be available. However, I want to correct some of the Member's assumptions. He will know that there has been progress on Casement Park. There have also been announcements from the GAA. There are allocations in the draft Budget for it and other sporting fixtures. I just commented to my colleague Mr Sheehan that, as a direct result of investment from the Executive, we have, in a strategic way, fulfilled water connections to 5,000 new homes since February 2024. Therefore, we are making a difference, and we are making change.

No one in the Chamber believes that we have sufficient funds in our hands to make the substantial difference that we want, but we can take your attitude and say, "Nothing is happening", or those around the Executive table can take the attitude of, "What can we do with what we have?". I believe that we are maximising change with what we have.

Mrs Dodds: Minister, over the past week, you have been telling individual Ministers to examine their budget to see what money can be saved. In respect of the capital budget, will you tell the House what you have been doing, particularly with the Health Minister, in relation to the sheer and wanton wastage of money on capital projects. Some £10 million has been spent on an energy centre, but not one brick has been laid. A maternity hospital was due to be handed over two years ago this March, but it still cannot be used. We need to take some action in relation to such projects.

Mr O'Dowd: There appears to be a misunderstanding across the House on occasions that I have more power than I have. I have suggested to some of your colleagues that, if they want to give me more power, I will take it. Some of your ministerial colleagues might not be too keen on the matter, but I assure you that I would use it wisely to drive some of those issues forward.

My comments are to all Ministers in terms of ensuring that our limited resources are used effectively and efficiently. We have huge challenges in delivering capital projects, and that is recognised across the Executive and in the Chamber. I do not have sole responsibility for approving those projects, but I do and will play my part as a member of the Executive team in order to improve capital delivery.

Some of our challenges are not unique. When you look south of the border, you see similar challenges there, as there are in England, Wales and Scotland. We need, perhaps, to look at lessening some of the bureaucracy that we put in place around such matters, without damaging accountability or the environment or any of those things. We need to do an urgent review of the way we place layers upon layers of bureaucracy on projects and then wonder why they are delayed.

Mr O'Dowd: Departments have surrendered £280 million of capital in 2025-26. Excluding Irish Government and Treasury earmarked funding that was returned for reprofiling into future years, a total of £199 million of surrendered capital was available to the Executive for reallocation in the June and December monitoring rounds. It was allocated in full. The December monitoring allocations were entirely funded by capital reduced requirements, providing much-needed capital funding across housing, Health, Education and Infrastructure. That included almost £30 million for social housing; just over £25 million for Health; £22 million for schools and the education sector; £12 million for further and higher education; as well as funding of almost £60 million going towards water services, road maintenance etc.

Mr Clarke: I thank the Minister for that answer. You are giving advice to other Ministers today: will you give similar advice to your Minister for Infrastructure in relation to the A5? Is it true that she held the money from July, given the court case, and did not ask for reallocation until December?

Mr O'Dowd: In fairness to all Ministers, there was no monitoring round until December. Ministers and Departments will have been aware of the schedule that we have for monitoring rounds. The Infrastructure Minister had to examine complicated legal requirements and issues before surrendering any moneys. The message is clear to all Ministers: if they expect not to be able to spend funding within a certain time, my Department should be alerted immediately. Where substantial amounts of money come to our attention, we will and can rearrange monitoring rounds, but it is not always as simple as that, and there are often complications. The quicker we can get capital money out the door, the better it is and the more wisely we can invest.

Mr Baker: How are the capital allocations supporting Education?

Mr O'Dowd: There have been significant allocations to Education over a period of time. As I said, £22 million has been invested in Education this year. The school estate clearly needs significant investment, and I will do all that I can to support the Education Minister in doing that, along with my Executive colleagues.

Mr Tennyson: When were you specifically made aware of the DFI underspends? Do you agree that it is substandard that significant capital reallocations are being made in the absence of an overarching investment strategy?

Mr O'Dowd: Engagement has been ongoing between my departmental officials and DFI over several months. Obviously, we were all aware that there was an issue with the A5 as a result of a legal challenge. I was aware of the potential surrendering of money, but the exact amount of that money did not come through until a later stage as a result of the complicated processes that DFI had to go through in order to establish exactly how much money had to be delivered.

The investment strategy is a matter for the Executive, and questions about it are probably best directed towards the Executive Office.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, you are at pains to describe the December monitoring round as a document of profound strategy and genius interventions here, there and everywhere as if it was planned. The truth is, Minister, that 10% of the entire Executive capital budget was underspent with three months left of the financial year. That is an extraordinary position for any Executive and Finance Minister to find themselves in. Can you guarantee that every penny of capital expenditure will be spent properly before the end of this financial year, 2025-26?

Mr O'Dowd: I do not think that I used any of the adjectives that the Member attributed to me, but, if he wants to call me a genius, he should feel free to do so.

The issues around delivering capital projects are well known, and there is a challenge for the entire House and for the Executive. If we continue to layer bureaucracy upon bureaucracy on top of capital projects, we should not be surprised when there are delays. All of us collectively have to take a view on which capital projects that make positive changes in people's lives should take priority over other things without putting at risk accountability or our environment. There is a challenge for us all.

Can I give you a guarantee? I can guarantee you that the message has been received loud and clear by all my Executive colleagues that they need to ensure that they monitor capital projects closely and that, if there is to be a slippage, the money is returned to the centre as quickly as possible so that it can be redistributed.

Mr O'Dowd: My officials have reviewed the Comptroller and Auditor General's (C&AG) findings from the 2024-25 Department for the Economy annual report and accounts and are pleased to note that DFE has made improvements on certain issues identified in the previous audit reports. I welcome the commitment that DFE has made to continue implementing a series of targeted improvements to strengthen the 2025-26 group accounts process. It is a highly complex group consolidation, due to differing accounting frameworks, systems and reporting requirements and different year ends. I acknowledge the progress that has been made to date, and it is important to see continued progress. Due to the use of comparatives in annual reports and accounts, Members will appreciate that the disclaimed opinion will take several years to unwind, and my officials will continue to support and assist DFE colleagues to achieve that goal as soon as possible. It is important to note that the issues highlighted by the Audit Office report do not call into question the approach of the Department or its arm’s-length bodies to value for money, propriety or management of the budget.

Ms D Armstrong: I thank the Minister for his response. Minister, will you, therefore, issue guidance to other Departments and agencies that will prevent further disclaimed opinions being issued?

Mr O'Dowd: I will engage with my officials to establish whether further guidance is required or whether the guidance that is in place is sufficient to ensure that proper processes and outcomes are followed. As I said in my original answer, it was a unique and complex case, but I assure the Member and other Members that it is not a question of money having been lost to the public purse.

Miss Hargey: Minister, you said that no money was lost to the public purse: was there any overspend as a result of this?

Mr O'Dowd: No, it is an important accounting issue but an accounting issue. No money has been lost, and there has not been an overspend as a result of this matter.

Ms Forsythe: In the Department for the Economy's accounts, there are financial assets of over £4 billion for student loans sitting on the balance sheet. That is highlighted by the C&AG as an item that she has disclaimed, saying that that valuation is out of date and unreliable. If that is proven to be so when it is reassessed, there is potential for the write-down of that asset, which could cost the Northern Ireland block hundreds of millions of pounds. Minister, have you reviewed the detail of that, and how much risk are we at of taking a huge hit to the Northern Ireland public finances?

Mr O'Dowd: My officials engage with officials from all Departments on such matters. We will keep a watching brief on all the issues and will have to work our way through them. I am satisfied that the processes are in place to monitor those situations. If further guidance or information is required by the Assembly or by Executive colleagues, I will follow up with that, and I have no doubt that the Minister for the Economy will too.

Mr O'Dowd: There is a long-standing commitment in the Fresh Start Agreement that the Executive can bid for a share of savings from actions carried out to reduce benefit fraud and error, where those savings can be verified by the Office for Budget Responsibility. On the basis of that commitment, my Department has provided to the Treasury the business case prepared by the Department for Communities making the case for such savings. Treasury has indicated that there are some issues in relation to the business case that it wishes to explore in more detail. Once those issues have been identified by Treasury, my officials will liaise with the Department for Communities to provide a response.

As part of the autumn Budget, the British Government stated that they would work with the Executive over the coming months on ways to tackle welfare fraud and error and on different funding options, including the potential to share a portion of the resulting savings with the Executive.

Mr Brett: Minister, will you outline why the paper on that important issue submitted to the Executive by the Minister for Communities has not been approved by the First Minister for discussion?

Mr O'Dowd: As the Member will be aware, I cannot discuss Executive business.

Mr O'Dowd: With the Speaker’s permission, I will answer questions 6 and 10 together.

As I set out in my statement to the Assembly in November, I am committed to delivering positive and progressive change to the rating system. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy. I want to see extra help going to those businesses, which provide vital employment, supporting workers, families, and communities.

To give businesses and interested parties a final opportunity to express their views before I present proposals to my ministerial colleagues, I launched a consultation at the beginning of December on proposed changes to the small business rate relief scheme. The consultation will close on 29 January, with the aim of securing Executive approval shortly thereafter.

The draft Budget proposals that I have put forward include a proposal that £10 million be held centrally for 2026-27 to provide support for small businesses. That would see additional support provided through the small business rate relief scheme, helping small businesses provide vital employment to support workers, families and communities.

I want to make changes for April 2026. The timescales that I am working to will allow that to happen. As Members are aware, Executive agreement will be required before any changes can be implemented.

Mr Donnelly: Thanks to the Minister for that answer. He has indicated that the DUP is blocking changes to the early payment discount and the maximum capital value. As mentioned, those changes would raise money to support small businesses here. What rationale, if any, has been offered for that position?

Mr O'Dowd: As I said, I cannot discuss Executive business, but I will say this: I like to think of the matter as still being under discussion rather than being blocked. There is a potential landing zone for agreement on these matters. We have to look at other ways of raising funds. It is a relatively small amount, but implementing the proposals and redirecting the funding to where I would like it to go will make a positive difference to our small and medium-sized enterprises.

Ms Murphy: Minister will you expand on the detail of the proposals in the consultation paper on small business rate relief?

Mr O'Dowd: The consultation paper puts forward costed options that focus on two main areas of the small business rate relief scheme. The first is an uplift in the valuation threshold for the scheme so that properties with a slightly higher valuation can be brought into the scheme. The second area is to enhance the level of reductions provided by the scheme to provide greater support for businesses.

Mr Harvey: Minister, have you engaged with the small business community on the newly planned reliefs and what they will mean for it?

Mr O'Dowd: Yes, there was extensive engagement at official level with the small business sector before the proposals went out to consultation. Obviously, their voices will be important in the consultation responses.

Mr O'Dowd: The draft Budget that I have put forward provides almost £26 billion in resource DEL funding for the Department of Health over the three-year Budget period. Excluding earmarked amounts, that would mean the Health budget receiving over 52% of available resource DEL funding each year. Given the priority placed on waiting lists in the Programme for Government, I am also proposing to extend the £165 million funding package made available in the 2025-26 budget for a further three years. That would see almost half a billion pounds dedicated to cutting waiting lists. The funding ring-fenced for waiting lists in 2025-26 is already delivering results, as evidenced by the reduction in waiting times. Of course, there is still more to do.

Mr Chambers: I note that the Health Department has found substantial savings in its current budget. Does the Minister feel that other Departments could do more to attempt to achieve similar outcomes?

Mr O'Dowd: The level of cooperation and engagement between the Department of Health and my Department has been an exemplar of how to do things.

Mr McGuigan: I welcome the prioritisation of Health by the Minister and the Executive. Given that the health service relies heavily on staff, can the Minister give a commitment that health workers will get their pay rises in a timely fashion?

Mr O'Dowd: I will go into more detail on those matters when I make my statement on the draft Budget after Question Time. When any Minister is preparing their budget, staff pay awards should be budgeted in at the start of the year, rather than waiting to see whether in-year funding becomes available.

Mr Speaker: Kate Nicholl is not in her seat.

Mr O'Dowd: My Department introduced a new requirement for Changing Places toilets in local building regulations that came into effect on 30 June 2022. That was an important step for inclusion and equality. Increasing the number of Changing Places toilets will make our public places more accessible and have a significant positive impact on the lives of disabled people, their carers and their families.

At the time, the Department assessed that there were around 42 Changing Places toilet facilities locally. It was also estimated that the new requirement could lead to the installation of 12 additional Changing Places toilets each year following a transition period to allow projects to progress from design through to construction and completion. Since the amendment to the building regulations, there has been an almost 100% increase in provision, with 81 local Changing Places toilets now registered with the Changing Places Consortium, although we have no specific breakdown of how the change to building regulations has contributed to that.

Mr Allen: I thank the Minister for his answer. Indeed, it is welcome progress. The Minister has highlighted that it is a positive step for inclusion and equality. In that context, Minister, what engagement have you or your officials had with the Department for Communities on how we can go further and ensure that wider society is more accessible for people with disabilities?

Mr O'Dowd: I do not have specific details with me on what engagement there has been between my officials and the Department for Communities in recent times, but I will be happy to update the Member on that. If further discussions are required, I am more than happy to task officials with that.

Mr Speaker: Doug Beattie is not in his place.

Mr O'Dowd: I thank the Member. On 3 December, I hosted a banking round table with representatives from the banking and finance industry, trade unions, business bodies and the consumer and community and voluntary sectors. It provided an important platform to discuss the issues and developments that are most crucial to accessing cash and services here, including the new access to cash rules; banking hubs; and digital and financial inclusion. I pressed the banking sector on the importance of maintaining the branch network, access to cash and essential banking services in our local communities, especially for our most vulnerable citizens, who need in-person services.

I also stressed the banking needs of our small businesses and our community and voluntary groups. In addition, the need to understand and accommodate the level of business and consumer transactions across the border with the South of Ireland and vice versa was highlighted.

Ms Finnegan: I thank the Minister for his answer. What progress has he made on the issues that were identified at the 2024 banking round table?

Mr O'Dowd: The engagement that we have had has proven beneficial for the banking sector and others when it comes to understanding the unique needs of this place. There has to be a greater understanding of this place at Whitehall level, and I am pushing very strongly for better representation from this place on various committees etc. I also want to see a better understanding of the cross-border element in that regard and to ensure that, when LINK, for instance, carries out assessments of communities' needs, the needs of cross-border communities are better understood than they currently are.

Mr Speaker: We move to topical questions.

Mr O'Dowd: I was hoping for clarity on what a "ghost Budget" is. I simply do not understand what the term means. I know that there are people who believe that they have seen a ghost, but I have never met anybody who claims to have seen an SDLP alternative to the Budget.

I have published a draft proposal, which is now out to consultation. In parallel with that, I will work with my Executive colleagues on how to move forward and obtain a multi-year Budget. That is my objective. That should be the objective of all of us in the Chamber. We should work collectively. There will, obviously, be disagreements and different emphases will be placed on where things should land etc, but we should all work collectively to deliver a multi-year Budget.

Mr O'Toole: On that basis, Minister, can you confirm that you cannot make the allocations that you have stated in that document that you want to make until there is Executive agreement? Is it the case that they have no standing until there is Executive agreement? Last week, lots of organisations appeared to be under the impression that those allocations had been made, but they have not yet. Will he be clear that, unless and until those multi-year allocations are agreed by the whole Executive, they do not stand?

Mr O'Dowd: I think that the Member underestimates the organisations, the sectors and the public out there. I think that they understand perfectly well what a draft Budget is.

Mr O'Dowd: We are, understandably, straying into the next item of business; it is a topical issue. The borrowing powers are there to be used as a top-up. You would like to see them almost as additional finances on top of what should be a proper capital allocation from Westminster, but we are using the maximum borrowing powers when it comes to capital in order to maximise delivery on the ground.

Mr McReynolds: Thank you, Minister, for your response. What is your assessment of the impact that a proposed capital multi-year Budget would have on the progress of infrastructure projects here?

Mr O'Dowd: It would be hugely significant, particularly in relation to capital. As Members will be aware, it takes a significant amount of time to plan and deliver capital projects. The longer the period of time over which you have to do that, the better that will be for financial planning. It would have a hugely positive impact. A multi-year Budget is good at any time, but, when facing the severe financial constraints that we face, it would allow us to manage the situation better.

Mr Speaker: Jon Burrows is not in his place.

Mr O'Dowd: The Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill, which will enable my Department to make regulations to establish a baby loss certificate scheme, completed its Final Stage in the Assembly on 2 December and now awaits Royal Assent. It is important that the detail of the scheme be shaped to the needs and expectations of families here. I am extremely grateful to the more than 1,000 people who took the time to respond to the consultation, the report of which has been published.

Once the Bill receives Royal Assent, the required regulations to specify the details of the scheme will be brought forward as soon as possible. Should the regulations pass smoothly through the Assembly, I hope that the scheme will come into operation by the end of this financial year.

Ms Murphy: The Minister has answered my supplementary question.

Mr O'Dowd: Yes. It is an important U-turn by the Chancellor and the Labour Government that came about following extensive pressure from the farming community, politicians across the Chamber and politicians in Chambers elsewhere. It is unfortunate that we have regular U-turns from the Labour Government. Instead of U-turns, we need a new economic and financial strategy from them, but this has been a welcome development.

Mr McAleer: I thank the Minister for his answer. Does he feel that the proposals go far enough?

Mr O'Dowd: With any tax strategy, there will always be winners and losers, but we want to ensure that the vast majority, if not all, of our family farms in the region are protected. In this instance, the changes will protect, quite significantly, the vast majority of our family farms here. The farming sector will continue to engage with representatives here. Should further issues arise, I am more than happy to make representations to the Treasury, if required.

Mr O'Dowd: Now that the autumn Budget has passed and the Christmas period is over, I have tasked my officials with engaging with the Treasury on opening up discussions on a full fiscal framework. The Member is aware of the relatively successful engagement that we had with the Treasury on the Holtham review and other matters. It is now time for us to open up discussions on a full fiscal framework, as was committed to at the time.

Mrs Guy: Thank you, Minister, for the response. Will you confirm whether the recommendation of a level of need of 128% in the Holtham review has been given consideration by the UK Government?

Mr O'Dowd: It has been given consideration by the Treasury and others. There are a number of ways of looking at how agriculture is included in the equation, but the Treasury did make a commitment to us at the time of the conclusion of that phase of our discussions that the Holtham review would remain on the table.

Mr O'Dowd: Quite substantive work has been carried out in that area in the past year. Work was first commissioned under my predecessor. Staff who work in procurement in my Department have been very effective and efficient in producing new guidelines and documents for the Executive for approval, and we have seen a number of those documents go to the Executive for approval. The most recent have been about reducing bureaucracy in the community and voluntary sector. We will continue to review and engage, but significant progress has been made on the matter.

Mrs Dodds: In the same context, it would be helpful for those of us who are not on the Finance Committee but who take an interest in such things if the Minister were to lay a letter about the matter in the Library so that other Members can see it.

Will the Minister indicate whether any work has been done on allowing small businesses to access the procurement system more readily?

Mr O'Dowd: Yes, on both issues. I am more than happy to lay a letter in the Library or to follow whatever process there may be to inform Members of the progress that is made. That includes progress on supporting our small and medium-sized enterprises to access the procurement process for government and local government.

Mr O'Dowd: I am committed to supporting sporting organisations across the board, Casement Park being one of those. Considering the lengthy delays to Casement Park, it is only right and proper for there to be an inflation-based increase in Executive funding for Casement Park, as proposed in the draft Budget.

Mr Baker: Go raibh maith agat. Thank you for your answer. Your proposals also suggest support for other stadia. Will you elaborate on that?

Mr O'Dowd: Yes. In keeping with the original agreement, my draft Budget keeps an inflationary uplift in Department for Communities funding of £12·6 million for the Affidea Stadium and £21·5 million for Windsor Park. As I have said many times in the Chamber and elsewhere, sport is a good thing. Supporting communities and organisations to deliver sports in high-class, proper facilities enhances not only sport but the community and, indeed, the local economy.

Mr Speaker: Jonathan Buckley.

Topical 9: go for it.

Mr Buckley: Apologies, Mr Speaker. I will ask one anyway. [Laughter.]

Mr O'Dowd: Fair play to the Member for thinking on his feet. It will go across a number of areas, including that raised by my colleague's question on sport that I just answered and the further ring-fencing of funding for tackling waiting lists. Almost £500 million has been set aside in the Budget for that. We have seen the success of that initiative in one year, and it is only right and proper that we continue that over the next three years.

Mr Buckley: The Finance Minister will be aware that public confidence is low that this institution can spend public money wisely and therefore put aside the appropriate resource to develop the core services that all our constituents badly need. Will the Minister therefore assure the House that there will be line-by-line scrutiny of the Budget to ensure that, root and branch, we root out waste across Departments?

Mr O'Dowd: Before any Minister made a bid in the Budget process — all Departments have made such bids — that Minister and their accounting officer should have done a line-by-line review of their budget. Indeed, I would go further and say this: every Minister and their accounting officer should have regular engagement about their budget and go through it to satisfy themselves that what they spend public moneys on is effective and efficient and delivers the results that they want.

Mr Speaker: Mrs Ennis is not in her place, so that brings to a conclusion questions to the Minister of Finance.

I ask Members to take their ease while we change the Table before we move to the next item of business.

Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, according to my computer, I received the ministerial statement on the draft Budget at 3.03 pm. Standing Order 18A makes it clear that Members are supposed to receive statements at least 30 minutes before Ministers make their statements in the House. Assuming that the Minister makes his statement at 3.30 pm, that is a prima facie breach of Standing Order 18A. The Minister and his Department are past masters, I am afraid, when it comes to that. It is hard to imagine a more important, detailed document than a multi-year Budget, but Members have had just minutes to look at it. I presume that it was ready for publication and sharing earlier today. Can the Speaker advise what action I can take to ensure that there is an investigation of that apparent breach of Standing Orders? What will be done to ensure that Members are treated with respect by the Department of Finance?

Mr Speaker: We can suspend for three minutes, if that is what Members want, for additional reading time. It is entirely up to Members.

Mr O'Toole: Further to that point of order, I do not think that an extra three minutes of reading time is sufficient, but I appreciate the point that has been made.

My broader question is in relation to the sharing of documents by Departments. It is clear that the statement was ready earlier today. It is not a document that has been prepared at short notice. I ask whether it is defensible for it to be shared at such short notice.

Mr Speaker: Whilst I am an individual who has knowledge on quite a lot of subjects, the inner workings of the private office of the Department of Finance do not fall within that. I do not know when the document was ready, but I know that it was put out at the time that the Member has indicated. Suspending for a few minutes will not make much difference, and I propose that we continue with business.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: 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. Over to you, Minister.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

Thank you for the opportunity to make a statement on my proposals for a draft multi-year Budget. This will allow me to expand on the information provided in my written ministerial statement of 6 January and to further inform the consultation that was launched on that day. The consultation will run for eight weeks until 3 March and will inform the Executive’s decision on their Budget. In parallel, I will continue to engage with my Executive colleagues.

The spending review in June marked an important step forward, giving the Executive the ability to set the first multi-year Budget in over a decade. It is important that we grasp the opportunity to provide Departments with certainty and the ability to make long-term plans and to enable strategic investment that delivers lasting benefits for our economy, environment and society. The proposals that I have put forward for consultation follow political engagement and have been developed against the backdrop of an exceptionally constrained financial position. They do not provide the level of funding that I would wish to see directed at our public services; instead, they reflect what is possible within the funding that is available. In that context, it has not been possible to provide any Department with the funding that it has requested. The continued underinvestment in our public services by the British Government means that both the resource and capital departmental expenditure limit (DEL) funding available is very constrained over the Budget period.

It is extremely disappointing how little additional funding is being provided to the Executive, despite the autumn Budget announced in Westminster resulting in increased taxes by amounts rising to £26 billion in 2029-2030. I welcome the £372·3 million of additional Barnett consequentials announced in the autumn Budget. Whilst it may sound like a substantial allocation, the reality is that, when taken over a five-year period, it falls far short of what is needed. I believe that the Chancellor could and should have gone further. The additional funding provided will not undo the damage caused by years of underfunding of our public services by successive British Governments and is insufficient to plug current and future funding gaps. While the interim fiscal framework has avoided our falling below the 124% level of relative need, the loss of the £520 million stabilisation funding provided in the restoration package means that the uplift from the spending review, particularly in 2026-27, has been largely offset. In the context of our funding pressures, the contribution from the Irish Government through the Shared Island Fund is welcome. I look forward to working with the Irish Government to maximise that.

I fully recognise the scale of the challenges and pressures that all Departments and Ministers face. The delivery ambitions of Departments exceed the funding available for resource and capital budgets many times over. There remains a significant and unsustainable gap between our ambitions and the resources at our disposal. Addressing that disparity will require adequate funding from Westminster for public services as well as substantive reform and meaningful transformation in how we design and deliver our public services. That must include a relentless focus on driving efficiency and responsibly generating additional income in a fair and equitable way so that we can provide sustainable services and secure better outcomes for the people whom we serve.

I have brought these proposals forward to seek the views of the people who use our services in order to help us to shape a multi-year Budget. Along with the written ministerial statement, I have published a fact sheet on my proposals. This oral statement provides further detail, and I intend to publish the usual draft Budget document later this week. Together, those documents provide the information needed to inform discussions. I am in listening mode, and I want to collaborate in a constructive manner. I want colleagues, citizens, businesses and communities to bring forward suggestions so that we can find solutions and deliver a multi-year Budget that makes the best possible use of the limited resources available. The consultation seeks views on the prioritisation of funding and public service provision. Where there is a belief that additional funding should be allocated to a particular area, that should be accompanied by an explanation of how that should be funded.

We need to do things differently. It is important that we are honest about the scale of the challenges facing us. With demand for services outpacing available funding, continuing to do things as we always have done is not an option. The need for transformation and giving consideration to alternative and innovative approaches to service delivery has never been clearer. Each Minister must strive to improve efficiency in how our public services are delivered so that resources can be freed up and reinvested in the services that our citizens depend on.

However, government action alone will not be enough. It will require a whole-of-society approach as we work to build a more sustainable system of public services. It is important to acknowledge that improvements will require contributions from all of us. Change is essential if we are to improve our public services and deliver outcomes for everyone. That will require a collective willingness across society to embrace change. That means harnessing technology, adopting innovative ideas and being prepared to consider options for raising additional revenue.

The autumn Budget is another illustration of why we need greater powers locally to ensure that our tax system takes account of our circumstances. Having greater fiscal powers would allow us to make different choices to spur economic activity or to generate income from public services in a fair and more progressive way. As part of that, my Department will intensify work to progress a full fiscal framework.

While income generation will form part of the wider budgetary sustainability, decisions must be based on the economic and social context and the need to deliver the public services that our citizens expect. You will appreciate that, in developing proposals on the regional rate, I needed to consider a number of conflicting pressures, including those across public services and for businesses and citizens. As I stated, the financial position across the Budget period is extremely constrained, whilst public services are facing increased demand and increased cost to deliver the services that citizens and businesses rely on. In seeking to strike the right balance, therefore, I set the proposed percentage increases to 3% for non-domestic rates and 5% for domestic rates. The proposals that I have put forward on the regional rate mirror what was agreed by the Executive and the Assembly last year. The proposals will generate an additional £250 million over the Budget period. In total, the proposed regional rates will provide £771·6 million, £800·8 million and £830·5 million respectively in each of the three years. That is the case after accounting for reinvestment and reform initiative (RRI) principal repayments, which are a first call on the regional rate.

Turning to the detail of my draft Budget proposals, the spending review set the Executive's resource DEL envelopes for 2026-27 to 2028-29 and capital DEL envelopes for a further year to 2029-2030. My draft Budget proposals are for the same period. Starting with resource DEL, which funds day-to-day spending, the Treasury provided £16·3 billion, £16·8 billion and £17·3 billion in each year respectively across the Budget period. That includes Treasury earmarked funding for security, the Executive programme on paramilitarism and organised crime, transformation, the Windsor framework, private schools VAT compensation, and debt advice. The resource DEL available to the Executive once those Treasury-earmarked items are provided for is £16·1 billion, £16·6 billion and £17·1 billion. That is supplemented with funding from the regional rates.

Each Department sought additional funding as part of the Budget. As I said, it simply was not possible to provide them with the amount requested. Due to the independent nature of the strategic oversight bodies, the budgets for the Assembly, the Audit Office and the Public Services Ombudsman are approved by the Audit Committee and have the first call on the funding available. After providing funding for departmental baselines, oversight bodies, RRI interest payments and statutory salaries, there remains £1·3 billion, £1·8 billion and £2·3 million to honour previous Executive commitments and provide additional allocations. The previous Executive commitments include areas such as agriculture; agrienvironment; fisheries and rural development; welfare mitigations; historical institutional abuse (HIA); truth recovery; and victims payments. They also include the early learning and childcare strategy, for which £195 million has been proposed to continue supporting working families with childcare costs. Those are set out in more detail in the tables alongside the statement.

Meeting those funding commitments leaves £0·5 billion, £0·9 billion and £1·4 billion across the Budget period. However, there are a number of additional commitments that I have suggested for Executive-earmarked funding, reflecting Programme for Government priorities. Again, those are set out in more detail in the accompanying tables, but they include, among other things, £495 million for waiting lists and elective care to continue building on the progress made in helping to get patients the care that they need more quickly; £133·3 million to meet in full PSNI workforce recovery costs; £21 million for skills to help grow the economy; £15 million for Lough Neagh, recognising its importance and our desire to protect it; and £15 million for ending violence against women and girls (EVAWG).

Given the Executive’s shared commitment to transforming public services and ensuring long-term stability, it is important to invest beyond the £235 million provided through the restoration package to drive meaningful transformation. I have therefore recommended that the Executive provide £95 million in resource DEL over the three-year period to support projects recommended by the public-sector transformation board (PSTB). I also propose that the Executive create a strategic reserve to help them to respond effectively to any issues that may emerge over the Budget period. My proposals include setting aside £200 million in 2027-28 and £400 million in 2028-29 for that purpose.

Funding those items means that there is £114·7 million, £430·9 million and £714·2 million available for general allocation to Departments. As the funding available is so limited in 2026-27, I propose to only provide general allocations to Education, Health, Infrastructure and Justice. Recognising that all Departments will face inflationary pressures, general allocations are provided for all Departments in the subsequent two years. In proposing those general allocations, I considered the bids submitted by each Department, including the potential equality impacts and the Programme for Government information provided. Providing the funding as a general allocation gives Ministers the flexibility to use the funding, along with their baseline funding, in line with their Department's priorities.

The autumn Budget provided the Executive with an additional £132 million, £89·3 million and £2·2 million. However, due to the requirements of section 64 of the NI Act 1998, that funding cannot be included at this stage. I anticipate that a settlement letter will be received from the Secretary of State in time for that funding to be included in the final Budget. I have, however, included indicative allocations for that funding in my proposals.

As the cost of welfare mitigations will increase across the Budget period due to the removal of the two-child cap, I have proposed funding of £9·4 million, £9·7 million and £2·2 million to the Department for Communities respectively. I have also set aside £10 million in 2026-27 to further enhance support to businesses. I intend to bring forward proposals to the Executive on how that funding could be utilised to enhance support through small business rates relief. I propose that the remaining funding be used to increase departmental general allocations.

In developing my proposals, I have not included the impact of any overspend in 2025-26.

That is because we do not yet know what the quantum of any overspend will be. It is also my intention to press Treasury to allow us to repay any overspend over a longer period to minimise the detrimental impact that an immediate reduction would have on public services.

It is essential that our public-service workers are appropriately rewarded. As pay awards reflect ongoing costs, they should not rely on in-year funding that may not be available at the same level in future years. Therefore, the Budget has been prepared on the basis that any appropriate pay awards, including those anticipated from pay review bodies, are factored into each Department's budget plans from the start of the financial year. To ensure that public-sector workers receive the pay awards that they deserve over the Budget period, Departments will need to continue strengthening the efficiency with which public services are delivered. Departments retain full flexibility to determine how best to achieve that, but effective workforce planning and accurate paybill forecasting will be important components of the work. Transformation and reform should also form part of each Department's approach. I encourage Ministers to work closely with their arm's-length bodies to ensure that the same level of care, consistency and good practice is applied across the wider public sector.

I turn now to capital. Departmental capital budgets are developed using a zero baseline. The spending review provided funding across a four-year period from 2026-27 to 2029-2030, and my proposals are across the same time frame. Treasury funding in each respective year of the Budget period is supplemented with funding from the Irish Government, giving £2·4 billion, £2·5 billion, £2·5 billion and £2·4 billion respectively across the Budget period. That includes Treasury-earmarked funding for city deals, the Windsor framework, the inclusive futures fund and An Ciste Infheistíochta Gaeilge.

As is the case with resource DEL, oversight bodies are allocated funding at the amounts approved by the Audit Committee. Funding those items means that there is £2·3 billion, £2·4 billion, £2·4 billion and £2·3 billion remaining for previous Executive commitments and additional allocations. There are a number of areas in which the Executive have made previous commitments. They include Strule, city and growth deals and flagship projects. Flagship projects include £1·1 billion for the A5, of which £527 million is being provided by the Irish Government. The development of the western transport corridor will not only enhance connectivity and accessibility across the region but, most importantly, provide a much safer route for all who travel it. The current road has brought heartbreak to far too many families.

There is £526·8 million for the mother and children's hospital — a major healthcare infrastructure project that will see the creation of a new regional children’s hospital and a new maternity hospital, both on the Royal Victoria Hospital site. Recognising the power of sport for community well-being, £101·5 million has been proposed for the redevelopment of Casement Park and £67·1 million for the subregional stadia to further modernise our grassroots sporting facilities. I also propose the provision of £21·5 million for Windsor Park and £12·6 million for the Affidea Stadium to ensure that our stadia act as focal points for our communities, now and in the future, and to make sure that we can host events that draw in international audiences. Full details are set out in the tables alongside the statement.

In addition, I have recommended areas for earmarked allocations. They include the medical school at Magee, the special educational needs estate, NI Water, social housing and transformation. After allocating funding to those areas, £1·8 billion, £1·7 billion, £1·6 billion and £1·7 billion remain, which I have provided to Departments as general allocations, thus providing Ministers with the flexibility to prioritise resources in line with their departmental objectives and needs. That funding is supplemented by borrowing under the reinvestment and reform initiative. I propose borrowing the full amount available and using it for strategic purposes. I therefore propose that funding of £231·5 million, £236·2 million, £240·6 million and £245·1 million is provided for investment in NI Water, the schools estate and social housing. That brings the total funding earmarked for water infrastructure and social homes to £433·7 million and £441·7 million, which will help unlock capacity and enable the construction of new homes and businesses and investment in the building of new social housing.

As with resource funding, the autumn Budget provided additional capital funding of £9·7 million, £83·9 million, £1·6 million and £34·8 million across the Budget period, but that funding can be allocated only indicatively at this stage. I have recommended using the funding to provide further general allocations to Departments.

Financial transactions capital (FTC) has been provided on a net basis, meaning that we no longer need to make repayments to the Treasury. My proposals seek Executive agreement to extend that flexibility to Departments, enabling them to recycle FTC receipts rather than surrender them for in-year reallocation. The funding provided for FTC in the spending review exceeds the departmental bids in all years but 2027-28. I have therefore proposed that all bids be fully funded where possible and that allocations in 2027-28 be distributed on a pro-rata basis.

Finally, as in previous years, funding for ring-fenced resource DEL, which is for the non-cash costs of depreciation and impairments, will be dealt with through the in-year process.

In conclusion, I stand ready to continue to work with my Executive colleagues to support workers, families, communities and businesses by delivering a multi-year Budget. Behind these millions and billions are people and families. A multi-year Budget will help shape our public services for years to come. The Budget process is not just about setting priorities within government; it is about listening to the voices of families, workers and communities to ensure that the decisions that we make reflect the needs and aspirations of the people whom we serve. I encourage everyone to have their say during the consultation process. It is on all of us in the Chamber to work together to improve their lives and opportunities for the future.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. I encourage Members to rise in their place if they want to ask a question, and I remind them that they need to have been here for the entirety of the statement. We will try to take questions at the end from those Members who came in slightly late, but that is not guaranteed.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, I have called this a ghost Budget. You have given us more detail today, so, in fairness, I probably have to upgrade that a bit. It will be more like a phantom or a zombie until we get Executive agreement, but there is detail in here.

One of my biggest concerns is about something that you said in the statement, which was that the overspends on pay that are planned in the Department of Education and the Department of Health in particular — it is right that we pay public-sector workers — are not factored into the plans. That worries me. It feels as though there will be a £500 million black hole before we even get started next year. What happens, particularly if we do not get the multi-year Budget agreed, if we go into next year carrying a huge debt from this year? How will we deal with it?

Mr O'Dowd: First and foremost, there is a responsibility on all Ministers, particularly those who carry a significant overcommitment, to do everything in their power to reduce that overcommitment and continue to work in their Department and their arm's-length bodies to ensure that those costs are driven down as much as possible.

The overspend is factored in by recognising that there is a potential overspend in the 2025-26 Budget. That is being dealt with in a number of ways. I will continue to engage with the Treasury on trying to spread the costs over the maximum time period. Ministers are aware that we will also have to deal with those matters during the monitoring rounds. It is up front. Ministers are aware of it; the public are aware of it; the leader of the Opposition is aware of it; and it cannot and will not be ignored. However, there are still three months left in this financial year, and I encourage all Ministers to drive down their overspends until the end of the financial year, bearing in mind that we continue to have to work our way through the Budget.

Ms Forsythe (The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Finance): Minister, your proposal is a statement of numbers and cuts without a discussion about how it aligns with the agreed Programme for Government. There is a lack of opportunities and sensitivity analysis being set out. Although you are working towards the fiscal framework, the proposals do not include what that will look like or what it will mean. You talked about delivering efficiencies, but the proposals do not include them or show what that means, nor do they include things such as where you plan to increase the amount of rates collected. When the consultation period is over and the full Budget proposals are brought forward, do you plan to include a path to maximising those opportunities and enabling us to deliver on the agreed Programme for Government objectives to prioritise public services for people here?

Mr O'Dowd: None of the proposals in the document will come as a surprise to your Executive colleagues; you can be assured of that. They were and are fully aware of them.

I have carried out my function as Finance Minister by publishing a draft Budget. Others will have views on that Budget, and there will, of course, be a divergence of views, but those who disagree with my proposals need to come forward with alternative proposals to those in my draft Budget. I have given Members all the information that they require in order to bring forward alternative proposals. I assure Members that I am in listening mode. If there are other ways of doing things, talk to me, and I will work through them with Members. We are working within a fixed envelope that has been imposed on us by the British Government. I have set the rates at what I believe to be fair and equitable levels, at 3% and 5%. If others disagree, let me hear that, but it would then be a case of either lessening the amount of rates from that which I believe should be collected, which will lead to budget lines having to be reduced or to an increase in the amount of rates that are collected, in which case budget lines could be increased. Members' option to say that they disagree was all right for last week, but for this week, the following week and the week after that, we need alternatives.

Miss Hargey: Thank you, Minister, for your statement. In it, you touched on the fact that we need to do things differently. Bringing forward a three-year Budget definitely does that. It is needed, and the public will agree.

Another area to look at is further fiscal devolution. What do you see as being the benefits of that? What work are you doing to progress further fiscal devolution?

Mr O'Dowd: You and I agree that, in order to grasp fully the potential of this society, we need constitutional change. In the meantime, however, we need to take more control of our fiscal destiny through fiscal devolution, whether that be income tax being devolved in totality or partially or stamp duty, air passenger duty and other items that the Fiscal Commission recommended be devolved. We may well look at other things that can be devolved so that we can make decisions at a local level that meet the needs of our businesses, workers and communities and then reinvest taxes in our society by way of investment in public services and the economy.

Some people challenge and criticise those who criticise the British Government's fiscal strategy, but I will continue to criticise it. It is time for the Assembly and the Executive to take on more fiscal powers.

Mr Tennyson: Thank you for your statement, Minister. It is now 10 years since it was suggested, in a report that your Department commissioned, that we were squandering hundreds of millions of pounds by running a divided society and by delivering services in key areas on a segregated, duplicated basis. In the spirit of doing things differently, do you agree that, in such a constrained financial environment, it is time to do something to tackle the cost of division?

Mr O'Dowd: The 'Cost of Division' report is a wee bit like the Bible, in that people quote the sections that suit them or that have different interpretations. Yes, there is a cost of division in this society. The stabilisation of politics and having leadership shown in the Chamber and beyond should help reduce division, but it is not as simple an equation as it is sometimes presented as being.

Where we can reduce costs through the removal of the duplication of services, we should. There is no argument against that from me. We should not, however, overestimate the costs that are associated with some of those things. One such area is policing, and, to a lesser or greater extent, duplication costs are associated with the provision of other services. The general principle should be to lessen division, and of course we should do that. Should we reinvest that funding in front-line services? Yes, we should.

Dr Aiken: Thank you very much indeed for your statement, Minister. You talked about financial transactions capital, which is being provided on a net basis. According to your statement, that will mean that we will no longer need to make repayments to the Treasury. The Treasury rules still state, however, that, unlike traditional grants, FTC must be repaid and is intended to generate a financial return. The rules have not changed, as far as I understand. Will the Minister therefore publish the advice that his Department received on what seems to be a significant change in UK Government policy, especially since, being no longer a loan but a grant, it may run into EU state aid rules?

Mr O'Dowd: I will be happy to share that advice with Members.

Mr Delargy: I thank the Minister for bringing forward a progressive draft Budget that prioritises people and skills. On skills, will he provide some more detail on what his proposed Budget will do for the continued expansion of the medical school at Magee?

Mr O'Dowd: I have proposed that we ring-fence that funding to ensure the continued expansion of the medical school at Magee. Magee is a success story not only for the university but for Derry city. You can see that in the number of students who are now going to that city and the subsequent investment related to that. My draft Budget continues to support the expansion of the medical school.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Minister. I note that your statement mentions £526·8 million for the mother and children's hospital, including a new maternity hospital. As I noted during Question Time, that hospital has been on site for two years and is still unsafe to use. I am extremely disappointed that there is no mention of a rebuild of Craigavon Area Hospital, which, I know, is important to both of us and our constituents.

The £495 million for waiting lists has to be welcomed, but, in the previous Budget, after you allocated money for waiting lists, £74·3 million of that was taken away from waiting lists and allocated to the deficit in the Health budget.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Is there a question?

Mrs Dodds: Can you assure us —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Brilliant.

Mrs Dodds: — that we will not see that again? What accountability will there be around such a figure?

Mr O'Dowd: There is an opportunity for Ministers to fund projects out of their general capital and resource allocations; in this instance, it is capital. I have highlighted projects that, I believe, are in line with the Programme for Government and Executive priorities and should be supported moving forward. Ministers can bring forward and fund other proposals as they see fit.

On the waiting lists and how the money was used in this financial year, that was how the agreement was set out with the Executive. It was an Executive initiative. The Executive set out the terms and conditions, and, in fairness to the Health Minister, he acted within those terms and conditions. It will be for the Executive to decide, first, whether they agree that the funding that I have proposed is sufficient and will proceed as planned, and then it will be up to the Executive to set the terms and conditions for that funding.

Mr McMurray: Thank you, Minister. What consideration have you and your colleague in the Department for Infrastructure given to ring-fencing any part of the Budget over the next three financial years for long-term investment in waste water treatment infrastructure?

Mr O'Dowd: I set out in my statement proposals for investment in our waste water infrastructure through traditional capital and through borrowing. As with all areas of the Budget, we would like to invest more, but we have seen significant development and change delivered as a result of strategic investment by the Executive and the Infrastructure Minister in NI Water, with 5,000 homes and businesses connected to the waste water system since the return of the Executive in February 2024. Would we like to do more? Of course we would, but we should also recognise what has been done.

Miss Dolan: Minister, given the underfunding of this place by the British Government, can you outline your engagement with the British Government on the fiscal framework?

Mr O'Dowd: As I mentioned to a colleague during Question Time, now that the autumn Budget has been completed, the opportunity exists for the Treasury and us to open discussions and engagement on the full fiscal framework. We have had initial success with the interim fiscal framework, and colleagues will be aware of the advantages brought by the Holtham report. The Holtham report remains on the table, but we also now want to look at borrowing powers for the Housing Executive. That is an important element to move forward with when it comes to the delivery of more social homes and upgrades to Housing Executive properties. The Treasury has committed to engage with us on that, and we also want to engage with the Treasury on the devolution of fiscal powers.

Mr Brett: Minister, thank you for your statement. Notwithstanding our party's clear reservations about some of your proposals, it is important to recognise that there is a lot in the Budget that we welcome and that our Ministers have fought for.

Minister, you said that you would like suggestions about changes to your Budget: can I provide you with one? You have allocated £3 million over the next three years for a Climate Commissioner. It is clear that, when bread-and-butter public services are under pressure, money should not be wasted on unnecessary quangos. Will the Finance Minister agree that we should scrap the Climate Commissioner and invest in front-line services?

Mr O'Dowd: I am meeting a bid from TEO for the Climate Commissioner, because the office will be under its auspices and legal framework. The fact of the matter is that we have significant climate issues that our society and others around the globe will have to tackle, and we have to play our small part in that.

Mr Chambers: Minister, I welcome the confirmation that £165 million will be ring-fenced for tackling health waiting times. However, the £50 million previously allocated specifically for clearing the backlog has now been removed. As that, arguably, has had the biggest impact this year, does the Minister recognise that it is important to be specific about where exactly that money is coming from? Rather than it being new or additional from the Executive, it is money that already existed in previous Department of Health baselines.

Mr O'Dowd: All baselines start afresh with the new Budget. It has to be recognised that, along with the Health Minister, the Executive ring-fenced money last year to tackle waiting lists and elective care and, by and large, it has been a success story. Let us build on that success story. The Health Minister took other initiatives in his Department that have started to change the waiting lists. They are nowhere near where they should be, but the focus by the Executive and the Health Minister has seen improvement. Let us continue with that. If we get agreement on what the Budget will be, you can argue that it is new money, or you can argue that it is existing Health money; the main point that the public will be interested in is whether it tackles the waiting lists.

Mr Kearney: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a ráiteas a chur i láthair.

Minister, workers and their families in this society continue to be punished by the cost-of-living crisis. Do you agree that public-sector workers should be prioritised in relation to pay settlements going forward?

Mr O'Dowd: Yes. At the start of the financial year, when Ministers sit down with their accounting officers, it is vital that they set aside the budget required for pay uplifts for public-sector workers. Members will be aware that, particularly this year, colleagues may have waited for in-year funding. I suspect that in-year funding will be very limited over the next number of years, given the trend and attitude of the Treasury and the British Government and the weakening state of the economy in Britain. It is only right and proper that, at the start of the year, Ministers sit down with their accounting officers and set aside the sums required for public-sector pay awards.

Mr Buckley: I am sure that the thought of additional fiscal powers for this place has filled many of our constituents with a new year dread.

Minister, there is much talk about efficiency in the statement, but how can we expect the ratepayers to believe a word that comes out of the Department's mouth about financial management when continued Audit Office reports show chronic waste with no signs of getting better, such as the hundreds of millions lost to benefit fraud and the major capital projects delayed by planning and poor —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Is there a question, Jonathan?

Mr Buckley: — oversight? Where specifically in the Budget can the general public see line-by-line scrutiny to ensure that we use public money in a way that is fitting, particularly at a time when cost-of-living pressures continue to apply?

Mr O'Dowd: Jonny, your constituents have more faith in you than you think. The public will engage in a discussion about the devolution of fiscal powers to this place, and they will have views on it. The more powers this place has, the more responsibility it places on us, as elected representatives, to carry out those functions.

It is up to each Minister to ensure that their budget is spent effectively and efficiently. Each Minister should have sat down with their accounting officer before submitting any bids to the Budget and gone through their budget line by line and assured themselves that it would be spent effectively and efficiently. No Minister or party should look across the Executive table at a ministerial colleague or another party and say, "You need to make savings", because, when you point one finger, four are pointing back at you. All Ministers should carry out that task and ensure that money is spent effectively and efficiently.

Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for the statement. The funding allocations for a just transition for Agriculture in the draft Budget are welcome, but it seems that the proposals for three of the four years are a cut compared with the allocation for this year. Will the Minister commit to engaging with the AERA Minister on that, recognising the need for support, especially in relation to a reduction in ammonia levels and to water quality?

Mr O'Dowd: I assure the Member that I am more than happy to engage with the AERA Minister around those matters, as I am committed to engaging with all Ministers.

Ms McLaughlin: The SDLP is clear that a multi-year Budget is welcome, but it must be aligned to a meaningful Programme for Government and an investment strategy, if we had one. I am concerned that the Budget is not strategic because it is clearly not aligned to something that we have not seen yet. Minister, how will you demonstrate that the draft Budget is fair and regionally balanced on allocations, spending and capital funds?

Mr O'Dowd: People will have different views on such things and different priorities around whether a Budget is right or wrong, but, in fairness, the SDLP came out within an hour of the Budget being published to say that it disagreed with it. It was not given any fair wind at all by the Opposition. Hopefully, in the next number of weeks, you will sit down with the information at hand, examine it closely and come forward with your proposals around the matter.

In respect of regional balance, the Member will see the continued commitment to Magee, and she will have to acknowledge the significant, positive changes in Derry over the past number of years as a direct result of the Executive and their Departments focusing on Derry and the north-west and ensuring that there is investment in it. The Budget allows that to continue.

Mrs Mason: I thank the Minister for his statement. Does the Minister agree that delivering a multi-year Budget for the first time in years is vital for providing certainty for public services and allowing the community and voluntary sector to plan ahead and that it is an opportunity that should not be missed?

Mr O'Dowd: A multi-year Budget is a good way to go at any time. Obviously, we have not been able to do multi-year Budgets in about a decade because of the way that Whitehall and Westminster brought forward their Budgets. However, now we have the opportunity to do a multi-year Budget. The fact that we are dealing with such financial constraints from the British Government and what can best be described as continued austerity means that a multi-year Budget in those circumstances is more crucial, because it allows you to plan better over those years and to bring in transformation and engagement and to work with your workforce and others around how you deliver your public services. It allows you to send out the signal to the economy as to how the investment will work over the next number of years. Even though things are extremely difficult and challenging, a three-year Budget and four-year capital Budget is much better in constrained times than trying to do it year by year.

Next year will probably be the worst year for finances available, so to try to work our way through next year and then do a two-year Budget after that would be a huge mistake. We have to get through next year and allow our Departments to know what is happening in the years after that to give them any chance of success.

Mr Kingston: The Minister will be aware that early learning and childcare is a Programme for Government priority. The Education Minister announced a budget of £55 million for early learning and childcare in the current financial year, 2025-26. As indicated in annex C to the statement, the budget for next year, 2026-27, is again £55 million. Is that a real-terms cut, and how does that tally with the PFG commitment?

Mr O'Dowd: It is a reflection of the real pressures on the 2026-27 Budget. I am proposing that that amount be ring-fenced by the Executive. The Education Minister can add further funds to that, if he believes that that is a priority for his Department. It is only right and proper that I ring-fence minimum amounts of money in the Budget, in line with the Programme for Government. If Ministers wish to add to that, they have the opportunity to do so.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for his statement. Given that we face unprecedented levels of pressure, as he has outlined, not least on capital budgets, is it not time to ask whether the £375 million estimated price tag for the Strule shared education campus is still feasible? We have not seen a clear value for money case for the campus, and the independent review of education could see no educational advantage being afforded by the project.

Mr O'Dowd: It is still a worthy case. I doubt that you would win that argument with the people of Omagh or in the surrounding rural communities, who are seeing significant investments in their rural town, which is west of the Bann. There are different points of view on shared education, but the Strule campus is an excellent example of what can be delivered when the Executive work together.

Mr Gildernew: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, I acknowledge and welcome your earlier comments about the value that sport brings to our communities. Can the Minister outline the proposals for supporting our local sporting organisations with improved facilities?

Mr O'Dowd: The draft Budget proposals include a commitment of just over £100 million for the Casement Park project. That includes an inflationary uplift on the original Executive commitment, which dates back to 2011. As the Member will know, the Irish Government have made a commitment to the project of €50 million, and the GAA have contributed £15 million. I have made sure that the British Government have lived up to their promise to make a financial contribution by providing a further £50 million. That is the way forward for Casement Park and confirms how the project can be funded.

I have also proposed funding for Windsor Park and the Affidea Stadium. I am on record many times as saying that despite not being any good at any sport, I believe that it is a very good thing and that we should be encouraging it in our society.

Mr McReynolds: Minister, you spoke of a challenging funding envelope on 'Sunday Politics' yesterday. The draft Budget has earmarked just over £1 billion for the A5 project, which is currently under appeal and has barely seen a road safety measure since the upgrade was first proposed. In asking colleagues for creative solutions, will you confirm whether you have discussed with the Infrastructure Minister ways and means of improving road safety along that 53-mile stretch of road that do not require just over a quarter of the total capital budget for DFI?

Mr O'Dowd: The A5 upgrade has been delayed for many years, and the latest court judgement has caused further delay. However, the project is still fit for purpose and worthy of moving forward on the basis of road safety and opening up the west for further economic development and enhancement. The west was ignored for decades, if not centuries, and it is only right and proper that investment is put into it. The connection from Donegal to Dublin and to Belfast etc needs to move forward. A significant amount of money has been set aside for the A5. I hope that there are no further delays and that the court case rules in favour of the project so that it can move ahead. If there are delays, the money can be quickly diverted to other projects in public services; it will not be lost.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, many in the Chamber have called for a multi-year Budget for many years. Another thing that everyone in the Chamber has called for consistently is the transformation that is needed for effective delivery of our public services. Therefore, can you give us some detail around the funding that is provided for transformation over the Budget period, please?

Mr O'Dowd: Yes. The party secured £235 million for transformation as part of the restoration package. That is a very welcome investment, but, on its own, it will not be enough. We have to continue the journey of transformation. We have already invested a significant amount of that, and further announcements will be made in due course. I propose to set aside a further amount of around £130 million for transformation over the budgetary period, because I believe that the transformation journey needs to be funded to continue to move forward on it.

Mrs Guy: I thank the Minister for his statement. A multi-year Budget undoubtedly represents an opportunity that we all welcome. As Finance Minister, you will play a significant role in leading transformation of public services. What engagement have you had with the Education Minister around transformation of that sector, particularly on structural reform, to make our services more affordable?

Mr O'Dowd: I engaged with the Education Minister on his budgetary pressures several weeks before Christmas. We have had a number of engagements on those matters at the Executive, and I have no doubt that we will have further engagement in the weeks ahead. Transformation will be high on my agenda, as I am sure it will be on his.

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

Other Members have extolled the virtues and value of a multi-year Budget, and I do not dispute any of what has been said in that regard. How does the Minister envisage the mechanics or the dynamic of monitoring rounds in that scenario? Will Departments be able to or be more likely to hold what they have? Could there be a detrimental impact, therefore, on Departments such as DFI that have, traditionally, been so reliant on monitoring rounds for in-year top-ups?

Mr O'Dowd: Monitoring rounds will continue to form part of the multi-year Budget process. They are a useful tool in redistributing moneys that cannot be spent within the criteria or time frames that have been set out. As part of the draft Budget, I will set out proposals to my Executive colleagues in that regard. I think that Departments could be incentivised by being allowed to retain up to £20 million of capital from the sale of assets. There is a considerable amount of land and properties under the ownership of Departments and arm's-length bodies that is not being fully utilised, and I am disappointed at the pace at which it is being disposed of. We could encourage Departments to do so by telling them, "If you remove those properties from your portfolio, we will allow you to keep the first £20 million". Where Departments are able to raise revenue in a fair and equitable manner, they should be allowed to keep that revenue up to a certain level. I think that that level is also up to £20 million, although I will confirm that with the Member. There are a number of incentives whereby Departments could be innovative in raising funds for themselves, but there will also continue to be a need for monitoring rounds.

Ms Egan: Minister, will you support the Justice Minister in intensifying engagement with the UK Government on meeting legacy costs, which will otherwise be unaffordable from the Budget allocation?

Mr O'Dowd: Yes. There is a case to be made on those costs. We are already engaged with the British Government on a number of areas where they have imposed costs on the Executive that are having a significant impact on the Executive's Budget. I am more than happy to work with the Justice Minister on that.

Mr Gaston: Minister, your draft Budget earmarks over £100 million for the Casement Park project. That a sum could pay around 2,400 band 5 nurses for a year. Can you explain to my constituents who have been waiting years for an operation or an offer of a house why that level of certainty is being guaranteed for a single stadium project? Our hospitals are understaffed, our schools are crumbling, and we cannot build in many of our towns across Northern Ireland because of infrastructure needs.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Have you asked a question, Timothy?

Mr Gaston: This Sinn Féin Minister has shown, once again, that he would rather prioritise Casement Park over front-line services.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister, I did not hear a question there, but if you —.

Mr O'Dowd: First, let me explain to the Member that capital funding cannot be used for wages, so it cannot be used to fund nurses.

If you speak to any health expert, they will tell you that the objective is to keep people out of hospitals, GP services and mental health services. Keeping them out of the health service altogether is the cheapest way to run the health service. One of the best ways to look after people's physical and mental health and well-being is through sport, be it through playing sport, being involved in organising sport, watching sport or being part of sports communities. I note that you did not mention the investment in Windsor Park or the rugby grounds; perhaps you do not object to those games, but, for some reason, which I think that we all know, you object to Casement. However, investment in sport is a good thing for all the reasons that I outlined.

Mr Carroll: The spend on tackling health waiting lists and pollution in Lough Neagh is generally welcome. However, the devil will be in the detail. Will the money go to private companies, including some that polluted Lough Neagh or that benefit financially from the health crisis? You mentioned:

That does not sound fair and progressive to me. It sounds more like Keir Starmerspeak.

Mr O'Dowd: Gerry, I have no doubt that the good people of West Belfast, like the good people of Upper Bann, want to see their taxes spent effectively and efficiently. There is no doubt in my mind about that: no matter what their views on economics and whether they are socialist, Conservative or whatever, they want to see their money being spent effectively and efficiently and delivering the best change possible for their society. That is the basis on which that terminology is used.

Decisions on where the money will go are for the Ministers involved. If we can achieve a three-year Budget, it will allow us to maintain and sustain services, particularly in our health service. It will keep our health service away from the private sector, which, it has to be said, by and large, we have been very successful in doing. However, allowing us to plan on a three-year basis will further ensure that our health service is kept in public hands.

Miss McAllister: In responding to my colleague's question on the cost of division, you commented that some people are selective when it comes to tackling such costs. The Alliance Party has always been consistent when it comes to dealing with that issue. In a Budget where every penny counts, we are talking about hundreds of millions of pounds. I ask the Minister what steps he has taken during his tenure to assess or deal with the cost of division and duplication and work with any other Department.

Mr O'Dowd: I was making a general comment, which, I think, was fair. There was a recent debate in the Chamber about the 'Cost of Division' report, and it is fair to say that there were different views and opinions on what the report's findings were, where the emphasis lay or what the most important findings of the report were. It was a general comment; it was not a slight on your party or anyone else in the Chamber. It is unfair to say that that report says that we are losing hundreds of millions of pounds because of division and, were that sorted out, we would save hundreds of millions of pounds. That is a view, but it does not set aside the fact that we need to tackle the costs of division.

My Department does not deliver front-line public services directly; it is responsible for the management and allocation of Budgets, the Civil Service overall, amenities and a few other matters to do with civil law etc. However, the best way to tackle division in our society is to make politics work, and I would like to think that I have played my part in that.

Mr Donnelly: I certainly welcome the investment in the health service. I note the £495 million for reducing our scandalous waiting lists, which is a Programme for Government commitment, and the funding for the mother and children's hospital at the Royal Victoria Hospital site. Does the Minister agree that significant overspends in the Department of Health and Department of Education have contributed to the difficult position in which the Executive find themselves? Given that a way forward appears to have been negotiated with the Health Minister, what is the status of the discussions with the Education Minister?

Mr O'Dowd: As I said, I think, to Mr O'Toole at the start, the overspend is first and foremost in our minds in planning for the multi-year Budget. There is a responsibility on all Ministers, particularly those who face significant overspends at this time, to drive down their costs. There is also a responsibility on the Executive to work with them and support them in that regard, and we have taken measures to do that. The Executive will decide collectively how we deal with whatever overspend we end up with at the end of this year. That will have to be factored into the final Budget.

Mr Martin: In his answer to the Member for South Belfast, the Minister mentioned his desire to have further devolved tax powers, including income tax powers. When I asked the Minister about that before, he said:

Is it not for you, as Finance Minister, to make the business case, as it were, for the further devolution of tax powers? What would you do with those powers? Can you rule out income tax rises now, for example?

Mr O'Dowd: My colleague will be aware that it took several years for the Scottish and Welsh to agree their fiscal packages with the Treasury. It would therefore be irresponsible of me to prepare a business case in advance of concluding the negotiations on what we would do with tax powers when they arrived. Some of the institutions have not even used the full suite of powers that they have. The first objective is to get the powers devolved. The Executive, collectively, can then sit down and discuss how best to use them within the framework in which they operate at that time.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister of Finance. I ask Members to take their ease.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ladies and gentlemen, the Speaker has received notice from the Minister of Justice that she wishes to make a 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.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the Criminal Bar Association (CBA) service withdrawal.

It is with profound disappointment that I make the statement. It is not one that I had anticipated making in the week in which legal aid fees have been increased by 16%, in the week in which an additional £6·15 million is being paid into bank accounts and in the week in which barristers are receiving £1·8 million of those funds. I know that many Members in the Chamber will be equally perplexed. The CBA's decision effectively to hold victims of crime and the wider justice system to ransom in order to leverage further significant fee increases is at odds with reality. It is at odds with the reality of what has taken place since my return to office, with the reality of what has been achieved and with the reality of what the CBA has itself agreed, and it is very much at odds with the reality of the trauma and suffering of the victims and witnesses who are being impacted on by the unreasonable and unwarranted withdrawal of service. The suffering of victims of crime should never be used as leverage. Trauma should never be a bargaining chip. It feels very much like the current situation, however.

In recent days, I have heard the phrases "beleaguered profession" and "last resort". On the basis of current demand, however, the recent uplift will amount to an annual increase of £11·5 million in legal aid fees. That is no small increase. I am sure that the majority of the working public and those who work in the public sector would agree. It is no small increase in the context of the financial pressures facing the Department and the Executive. Today, my budget is over £220 million worse off than it would have been had it merely kept pace with inflation. All of us here know that those pressures will only increase in coming years, not least next year. It is not a small increase in the context of an existing £42 spend per capita on criminal legal aid, which is double the per capita spend of £21 in neighbouring jurisdictions such as Scotland, England and Wales. The CBA has failed to recognise that reality, and we are now entering yet another year in which victims and witnesses suffer unavoidable and indefinite delay.

It is 14 months since the CBA action began. The scope of action has changed during that time, but it has done serious damage throughout the system and to the victims, witnesses and defendants — your constituents and mine — whom the system is supposed to serve. I commend and thank the Public Prosecution Service's (PPS) victim and witness care unit, the Commissioner for Victims of Crime, Victim Support, ASSIST NI, Nexus, Women's Aid and all the other voluntary-sector organisations that are actively supporting those affected by the service withdrawal for their work.

Notwithstanding my desire to see an immediate return to full service, I call on the CBA to take cognisance of its professional duties and agree a derogation in the service withdrawal for cases in which there is acute distress, risk of harm or other serious impact on individual victims. That may be a vain hope in the context of previous refusals to allow derogations, but, while I respect the right to withdraw services, I believe that there is also a duty on us all to protect the most vulnerable and take ethical and sympathetic approaches. That is why most other public-service providers withdraw services for days, rather than indefinitely. Unlike the CBA, they seek to mitigate the impact on those whom the system is there to serve. That would not undermine its position; it would show a level of compassion for the vulnerable individuals whose right of access to justice is being most severely compromised.

We are, of course, considering what other steps we may be able to take to support victims and witnesses, who are and will remain my priority. I have invited representatives of the support organisations and PPS NI to meet me to discuss options. The unfortunate reality is that the damage caused by the withdrawal will only increase with the escalated action that commenced last Monday. More cases are arising each day, and so the risks are mounting.

There have been many calls in recent weeks for discussion and engagement to find a way to end the damaging withdrawal, and I offer reassurance that I have committed significant resources to resolution since the CBA commenced its action in November 2024. I have taken many steps to address the purported concerns of the CBA, and I remain engaged and continue to strive to find a resolution. Throughout the CBA action and before, we have been engaged, proactive, constructive and responsive. We have listened and have made commitments, and, as the 16% uplift shows, we have delivered on those commitments. We have done so in the context of ever-changing personnel leading discussions for the CBA; ever-changing and often unclear demands; inconsistent messaging; and reluctance, delay and procrastination in the provision of the evidence that is absolutely necessary to approve the use of public funds. That is in contrast to the Law Society and the solicitors' criminal Bar, which have worked with us to ensure that real progress has been achieved for their members and remain committed to continuing to do so.

Fair, proportionate remuneration is critical to high-quality advice and representation. I have always been clear in my commitment to ensuring that that is what legal professionals receive. It is one of the main drivers of the reform programme that was already in train when the CBA first commenced action in November 2024. Key milestones for reform were set out in the programme delivery plan, which was shared even as the CBA escalated action last January. As Members will be aware, the conditions initially placed by the CBA on a full return to service were the publication of the fundamental review of criminal legal aid; the implementation of the recommended uplift; and the reform programme's being progressed. Yet, when I took the steps to deliver all three asks, the CBA continued with its withdrawal of service.

The original recommendation for the 16% uplift extended only to criminal legal aid, but I approved the increase for the entirety of the legal aid framework. I went further still — much further than Judge Burgess recommended — and backdated the uplift to 1 December 2024. That was an unprecedented step — uplifts have never been retrospective — but I considered it justified and reasonable to apply the increase from the point at which I accepted the recommendations. Notwithstanding the very damaging effects of the withdrawal, I extended the backdated uplift to all members of the Bar, as well as solicitors. I did not want practitioners who were continuing to deliver services to suffer negative consequences because of the CBA action. That was not an insignificant step, but, again, the CBA continued with the withdrawal of service.

By January, the ask had changed, and the service withdrawal was being linked to the full implementation of the fundamental review, an immediate uplift in fees and the abandonment of my proposed approach to cases left on the books. Again, I responded as I could: I began the necessary governance and legislative steps to implement the 16% uplift; delayed publication of the programme delivery plan to allow representations to be considered; and then reprioritised the plan to postpone the proposed review of cases left on the books. The professions were clear at that point: they wanted the working group established quickly and His Honour Judge Burgess to be appointed to lead that work. I made that appointment, and the working group has been meeting, but, again, the CBA did not return to full service.

By April, we were told that development of the proposed refresher fee pilot would secure full return to service. We developed proposals that included fees over 100% higher than those recommended by Judge Burgess in his 24 August report and 20% higher than the CBA had requested in April 2025, but, again, the CBA did not return to full service. The obstruction was that CBA members wanted to claim the proposed refresher fee for a full day in court while also claiming fees for work undertaken in other courts during the same period of court time. In an effort to ensure the efficiency of the justice system, we adjusted the time period to which the full-day refresher fee applied, but still that appears not to have been enough to end the withdrawal of service.

As I have said already, I am very keen to end the impasse. I have also said many times that service withdrawal means delay and additional delay means that defendants, whether guilty or innocent, must wait longer for their case to be resolved. Delay means greater risk of witness attrition and of people withdrawing co-operation. It means greater risk of victims not receiving justice and greater risk of justice coming too late. It means greater risk of harm to the public: risk that the innocent remain in custody longer than necessary and that the guilty go free.

I really want to do all that I can to ensure that cases proceed and the justice system operates as it is supposed to. However, there are things that I simply cannot do. I cannot sanction payments from public funds for the same or overlapping periods of court time. I have a duty to uphold the principles of managing public resources and to ensure that value for money is being achieved. If we are paying for a period of someone’s time from public funds, we cannot also pay them for other work undertaken at the same time. No one can effectively deliver two services at once. That goes to the heart of good governance. It goes to the heart of ensuring that those whom legal aid is there to support — the actual recipients of legal aid — receive a quality service. Legal aid is provided so that those who cannot afford advice and representation get access to justice, and they deserve the same quality of service as any other client.

I also cannot make a case for fee changes in the absence of evidence. Affordability is an issue for the Department — were it not, Members would rightly hold me and my officials to account — but it is not the primary issue in discussions with the CBA. The challenge, also rightly, is value for money and proving that value with robust evidence. I cannot depart from that principle. I cannot sanction spend from public moneys on the basis of someone’s word, however much we might value their professional prowess. The Solicitors' Criminal Bar Association (SCBA) is being asked in the same working group to meet the same evidential requirements, and it is delivering. Solicitors are doing so while continuing to deliver services to their clients. Arguably, a higher number of solicitors are affected by the current Crown Court fee structure than barristers, yet they remain in work. The committed and engaged approach of the Law Society and SCBA is delivering tangible results and proving our commitment to act where evidence justifies it. It has allowed us, for example, to introduce additional changes to police and criminal evidence (PACE) and parole fees and to develop a PACE pilot that we aim to commence in March.

His Honour Judge Burgess was clear: the available evidence allowed him to make a recommendation for a 16% uplift. I accepted and implemented that uplift. The Bar is now saying that 16% is not enough and that a further uplift, which it is describing as "interim", is required. However, Judge Burgess was also clear that further changes to fees beyond that 16% would require further evidence, and the working group was set up to that end. That is the appropriate forum to take the work forward, not a picket line at the door of the Bar Library and not a war of attrition in which the most vulnerable of our citizens are used as weapons.

Any further changes, which I am committed to making where they are required, must be based on the reality of the current landscape. The statement by the CBA that fees have not increased since 2005 does not reflect the reality of the current landscape. The recent 16% uplift was applied to the Crown Court legal aid framework that was agreed by the CBA through mediation in 2016. That mediated agreement reduced proposed significant cuts to fees that, as in England and Wales at the same time, were proposed in the interests of efficiency, value for money and sustainability. The picture has also not been static since then. We are not comparing like with like. Practice has changed. Indeed, the total legal aid expenditure on barrister costs for work in the Crown Court has increased by 76% since 2019-2020.

Our current fee regime means that some members of the Bar are very well paid: the chair of the Bar has acknowledged that. I also agree with his assessment that some more junior members of the Bar are probably struggling, but it is convenient and overly simplistic to suggest that that is because of fee levels.

Fee levels are immaterial if you do not have the opportunity to earn, and, regrettably, that is very much the experience of some. Between April 2022 and September 2025, 74% of legal aid expenditure on counsel in the Crown Court went to just 22% of criminal defence counsel. In fact, one barrister received £3·89 million — as much as the total received by 53% of their colleagues put together. When it comes to junior members of the Bar, the real question therefore is not how much we pay for work but how that work and the associated funds are distributed to ensure a thriving, experienced and sustainable profession.

I am committed to doing what I can to address that. Indeed, that goal is one of the key drivers behind the refresher fee pilot, which aims to promote career development by freeing up work and changing the profile of barristers working in the various court tiers for the benefit of junior and, in particular, female criminal defence barristers. That strategy will not work, of course, if multiple fees can be claimed for the same period of court time by the same individuals.

I cannot address that imbalance alone: the profession must also take steps to promote career development and to ensure that the system does not perpetuate delay by being dependent on a few individuals working on a disproportionately large number of cases. It is not yet clear to me whether the Bar is taking steps to improve viability and towards a fairer distribution of cases and related funds, but I hope that its members will follow the example and leadership of their colleagues in the Law Society and take action to support career development and equality of opportunity.

I also hope that the Bar will reflect on my request and reconsider this very damaging service withdrawal. I encourage it to reflect on the real progress that has been and can be made and to acknowledge how responsive my Department and I have been.

I met members of the profession on 5 November and was heartened by what was a constructive engagement in which that progress was acknowledged and it was agreed that intensive engagement on the refresher fee pilot would take place over the remainder of that month. It was also agreed that I would meet members quarterly to improve communications, which I was happy to do.

Instead, the CBA committee resigned en masse, and new leadership was elected. The latest CBA requirements for a full return to service were presented to us late on 26 November, and my officials met the CBA two days later to discuss them. An amended list of demands was presented just days prior to a further meeting with officials on 8 December, at which time a road map was agreed by all working group members to take forward all the outstanding issues, including those raised by the CBA. However, within a few days more, the CBA took the decision to escalate its action and to withdraw completely from the Crown Court, despite having agreed a way forward and being in the knowledge that the uplift and backdated payments were due to reach bank accounts in early January. That is hard to reconcile.

My hope remains that the CBA members will return to full service and join us, the SCBA and others in the working group to progress change. The working group and the road map provide a real opportunity for collaborative delivery of a sustainable, viable system. I hope that the CBA and others with influence over it will see that.

Last week, I took the unprecedented step of writing to all 219 barristers who were in receipt of Crown Court legal aid payments in the past 12 months, setting out clearly what has already been achieved through the working group and my willingness to work with the profession to bring the impasse to an end.

I am pleased that the CBA has provided slightly more clarity on its current ask in response to that letter. I remain, as ever, committed to constructive engagement and am due to meet the chair and vice chair of the CBA this week. I hope that they are equally open to progress.

Victims, witnesses and defendants deserve so much more, and we cannot deliver the service that they and wider society deserve if the system is continually brought to a halt. I have previously stated that that cycle simply cannot continue in the longer term, and I know, as will Members, that alternative models for delivery of services provided by the criminal Bar will have to be progressed at pace if the withdrawal does not conclude swiftly. As I have also said, that is not a step that I want to take, nor is it one that I would take lightly, but it is difficult, at this juncture, to see another way forward.

I commend the statement to the House.

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

Minister, I am glad to hear that you are scheduled to meet the chair and vice chair of the CBA in the coming days. It is important, for conciliation and for people, to meet to resolve the issue. Can you confirm whether the Bar of Northern Ireland wrote to the Department in advance of the strike, inviting the Department to meet urgently on a number of dates in an attempt to avert action? Can you confirm that the Department did not reply to that correspondence?

Mrs Long: By the time the correspondence in question had been received by the Department, the opportunity to stave off the arrangement that was proposed had passed, because we had agreed a road map on 8 December. Everyone signed off on that, including the CBA and the Bar Council, and it was agreed as the way to take forward those discussions. There has been talk by the CBA and the Bar Council about mediation and a mediated approach. However, mediation will not get over the main hurdle, which is the lack of evidence to substantiate the demands that they have made. I took advice from Judge Burgess about the opportunity to seek mediation. It is his view that if we entered mediation, we would immediately hit the same roadblock, because his inability to get a resolution to the issue has been due not to a want of effort but a want of evidence to substantiate the claims that are being made.

Mr Frew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Justice): As Chairperson of the Justice Committee, my heart goes out to all victims who are caught up in the strike action, including some of my constituents in North Antrim. The 16% uplift in fees was only due to begin being paid this month. How much does the Minister believe that the prolonged delay has contributed to the new strike action? Will she confirm that Judge Burgess described the 16% uplift as being an interim position only? Will she further confirm whether the Bar has supplied submissions on proposals to the Department, including independent economic appraisals, to move on the negotiations?

Mrs Long: There were a number of questions there. First, it was delayed because we had to go through a due diligence process. That was with the Committee, it had to be agreed by the Department of Finance and a business case had to be prepared. Did it contribute to the strike action? I do not believe so because when I met the then vice chair and chair of the CBA and the Bar Council, I was able to reassure them about the time frame for delivery. It was almost a month after that, when the new regime had taken over, that they decided to proceed with the strike action, despite being previously advised not to go down that route by the Bar Council. I do not think that the delay contributed to the strike, but, of course, I do not welcome any delay. It is, however, a reality that we have to provide robust evidence to the Department of Finance.

On the evidence that has been provided in the independent report, there are differences between our analysis and that of the independent report. I dispute some of the content of the report. They have given us around 15 dip samples of how people's earnings and fees have operated, but that is not a cross section that is statistically significant, nor is it a basis upon which we can make decisions. Judge Burgess reached the conclusion that we could not move forward on that basis. We have encouraged people to come forward with further evidence and, indeed, developed an evidence-gathering template that will allow us to bring this stuff forward in a more coherent way.

The Member asked another question, but I cannot recall what it was.

Mr Frew: It was about the uplift being referred to as an interim payment.

Mrs Long: Yes, it was referred to as an interim uplift, and that has now happened. The truth is that we have gone beyond that 16%. As I have said, we have also looked at PACE fees and other things. Those were the things that Judge Burgess was talking about. As I said in my statement, I am not averse to further uplifts in criminal Bar fees, but they have to be evidenced. If I do not have sufficient evidence to ground a business case for an uplift in reality, I will be unable to approve one. Claims made last week that there should be a 100% uplift on fees are detached from the real world and the financial situation that we all face, but they are also detached from what people are currently paid for doing the same job in neighbouring jurisdictions.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Minister. I gave Paul Frew a bit of leeway there because he is the Chair of the Justice Committee.

Ms Sheerin: Minister, there is a wee bit of a misconception among the public about the average salary of a barrister. There is also a disparity in the profession, with people from working-class communities, minority communities and women often unable to excel within it. What can the Department do to ensure that people from those under-represented sections of society can enter the profession and progress within it adequately?

Mrs Long: Regulation of the professions is not the responsibility of the Department of Justice. That rests with the Department of Finance. However, where fee structures and legal aid structures can play a role in assisting people, we want to use the leverage to do that. You used the word "excel". Lots of working-class people and lots of women do excel at the Bar. The problem is that they often cannot access cases when they get to that level of qualification, because, as I pointed out, around 75% of the fees go to about 22% of the barristers. That hoarding of cases means that there are young people who are shut out of the profession and do not get the opportunity to practise their craft. That is an issue for them, which I am very sympathetic to, but it is also an issue for the sustainability of the profession, because, unless young people have adequate experience, they will not be able to take over the more complex cases from people who age out of the profession.

There is the issue of people charging twice for the same period. The refresher fee pilot will ensure that, where a barrister is meant to be in the High Court, for example, they are not also nipping into the Magistrates' Court to do other work. That would allow that Magistrates' Court work to pass on to younger barristers, who would be able to cut their teeth and gain experience. That is a sensible solution to a problem that we have had. The hoarding of cases also impacts on the number of adjournments that we see in serious cases in Northern Ireland. There are 14 adjournments in the average criminal law case in Northern Ireland compared with seven in England and Wales. There has to be something that we can do to change that, and the refresher fee pilot, along with the other changes that we recommended in the plan, are there to do that. I am willing to look again at fees, but I do not think that fees are the reason why some young barristers are not able to survive as barristers.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Minister, for your statement. Will you, please, further outline the budgetary context in which demands for the legal aid fee uplifts are being made?

Mrs Long: You have all just had a session with the Finance Minister, who set out in fairly stark terms the budgetary situation that we face. The Department of Justice has, in the period since devolution but particularly in the past 10 years since the removal of the ring-fencing of the Department of Justice's budget, suffered significant reductions in comparison with other Departments. When you look at the fact that our budget is mainly demand led and, therefore, we cannot control the different pressures that arrive at our door, and at our constrained finances, you see that we face a fairly bleak picture in the next 12 months. However, despite the pressures that we have been under, last year, we set aside the full requirement for legal aid at the start of the year. That was the first time that we have been able to do that in the time that I have been in office and, indeed, I think, since devolution.

We were able to set aside what we anticipated legal aid would cost as opposed to what happened in previous years, when we set aside a proportion for legal aid and then tried to uplift it gradually as we went through the quarterly reviews of the finances within Departments. We have also driven down the length of time that it takes to pay the profession, which has also been an issue of contention. We have managed to get that resolved. Given the context that we are in and all the pressures that we face, a 16% uplift, speedier payment, plus the other changes that we propose and my willingness to look at anywhere that there is real justification for other fees to be uplifted, is as far as anyone can rationally expect me to go.

Mr Beattie: I apologise to the Speaker's Office for missing my question for oral answer — number 13 — to the Finance Minister. I was waylaid.

The Minister outlines the problem very well in her statement. It is right that we all look at this issue and concentrate on victims. They are really the ones who will suffer, and we need to do everything that we possibly can to fix it so that we can help victims. Will the Minister confirm whether the Lady Chief Justice (LCJ) offered to mediate in this dispute? Did the Minister decline that offer?

Mrs Long: No. The LCJ did not offer to mediate personally. I am sure that she would want me to stress that she would not get involved in this dispute. She did write to the Criminal Bar Association, the Bar Council and the Department suggesting that mediation may be a way forward. We declined that offer, because, unlike in 2016 when there was mediation, there is a road map and structure within which we can negotiate these issues.

To me, it would have been an enormous slight on His Honour Judge Burgess to say that we needed a further set of mediations when we already have a mediation process in place under the auspices of Judge Burgess in the working group. It would also be unfair on the members of, for example, the Law Society, the solicitors' criminal Bar and, indeed, other barristers, if I were to go off into a huddle with the Criminal Bar Association and look only at their issues to the exclusion of everyone else when they are the people who have withdrawn service while others have continued to do their everyday job and make that investment in victims and witnesses. That would not be appropriate.

From my perspective, there is a tendency for people to assume that this is a dispute about pay in the way that an employed person may be in dispute with their employer. I am not the employer of anyone in the Bar. My role is to provide adequate remuneration in order that people who cannot afford to access justice are able to obtain the advocacy that they need to have their case heard and either defended or prosecuted in the courts. My focus is on the use of public funds and whether there is value for money. I cannot ignore the value-for-money element.

While mediation seems like a solution, I ask this question: given that the Bar and the CBA, in particular, asked Judge Burgess to chair the working group, do we just continue with different modes of engagement until they find somebody willing to chair the group who agrees with everything that they ask for?

Mr Baker: I thank the Minister for her statement. What is the Minister's assessment of the recent 25% increase in the rate that Departments, including the Justice Department, pay counsel that they instruct? Does that provide evidence of what an appropriate increase for publicly funded work might look like?

Mrs Long: No, it does not, and I will tell you why. The people who do call-off contracts for government and, indeed, those who work for the PPS get paid significantly less than, for example, defence barristers in the same case. If you look at what somebody gets paid via legal aid to defend a case in court versus what somebody gets paid by the PPS to prosecute that case, you see that there is a significant discrepancy. That discrepancy should not exist, but there is no way that I can justify funding that discrepancy from the Justice Department's budget. Even with the increase to Departments' counsel fees — indeed, that may extend in due course to the PPS — those who act on their behalf will still be paid significantly lower rates than those who act through the legal aid system. That is not sustainable.

We in the Department looked at a case involving a criminal prosecution in which the defence earned 10 times what the prosecuting barrister earned, despite having the same overheads and the same case complexity. All things being equal, those claiming through legal aid for the defence were earning a metric of about 10 times as much. That is not sustainable. Therefore, there is a difference between the fees. I will say this: when we look for barristers to work on call-off contracts for the public sector and, indeed, the PPS, there is no shortage of people willing to come forward and do that work, which shows that the remuneration is healthy.

Mr Kingston: I thank the Minister for her statement. We all share in the huge disappointment about the withdrawal of services by the Criminal Bar Association and the impact that that is having on people who cannot otherwise afford legal representation.

Further to her previous answer, what options are being considered as alternative models for the delivery of services if the withdrawal of services continues long-term and does not conclude swiftly?

Mrs Long: I have already instructed my officials to look at options for the delivery of advocacy for those who are in receipt of legal aid in order to ensure that they are still able to access justice, which is my duty. My duty is not to barristers or solicitors, albeit, as part of a healthy justice system, I have a responsibility to ensure that it functions well and that includes working closely with the professions. My primary duty is to those in receipt of legal aid.

I do not want to pre-empt what may happen at this stage by speculating on the options available, but all options are on the table, and we will have to consider them. What we cannot have, however, is the cycle of stop-go. It will not work in the justice system any more than it works in politics. It causes significant damage and comes at a significant cost. There is a financial cost to the stop-go in the Bar and its impact on the system. There is an emotional cost to those who are caught up in that, but that emotional cost also has a financial cost attached, because people will need more support from the organisations that are there to support them through the justice system. Providing that support will require more intensive investment. I am meeting those support organisations about that later this week to see whether there is more that we can do to ensure that we do not have victim and witness attrition as part of the overall process, where people simply walk away from cases and those cases are then allowed to fall by the wayside. There is a cost — a financial cost — to this, and there is no budget line for recovery in my budget. The delays that are being accumulated at this point will be delays that we will carry into the future, and they will do huge damage to the justice system.

I am willing to look at all options, but my preference is to see the criminal Bar back at full service delivery. The differences between us can be resolved; in fact, the previous chair agreed with my analysis that that could happen in the month of November. I encourage the criminal Bar to get back to that point. A month would resolve its problems, and there is no reason that it cannot work while navigating the issues, just as the solicitors' criminal Bar does.

Ms Egan: I thank the Minister for her statement. I agree with colleagues across the House that the impact that this will have on victims and witnesses is extremely concerning. Will the Minister expand on and explain the types of cases that are being held to ransom by the CBA's withdrawal of service?

Mrs Long: We are aware of a number of cases, and they are quite serious cases. Some will be higher-profile than others, but they include rape, serious domestic violence and serious sexual assault cases and cases involving child victims and witnesses. All are being held up and impeded by the action. The impact on delay, which we had already been working hard with justice system partners to address, will probably not be fully clear for some time, but, last week alone, 10 trials, 57 arraignments and 22 plain sentencing hearings were directly affected. The full withdrawal list last January meant that 164 trials were aborted; 328 sentencing hearings that could have concluded cases from the victims' perspective were aborted; 536 victims were stood down or informed that their case was not being heard; and 2,811 witnesses were stood down. By the end of January, the impact of the current withdrawal will be in the region of half those numbers, but it puts in perspective the significant impact that the withdrawal of service will have on victims, on witnesses and on the justice system in general.

There is nothing to stop the CBA returning to full service, continuing to engage on the working group with Judge Burgess and my Department and re-engaging on that basis so that we can solve the issues in a manner that does no damage to the justice system or to the ethical integrity of the profession but focuses on ensuring public service delivery while ensuring that people are properly remunerated for the work that they do.

Ms Ferguson: I thank the Minister for her statement. I very much hope that all goes well in the meeting with the chair and vice chair of the Criminal Bar Association in bringing forward the road map and evidence gathering.

Back in December 2024, Minister, you published the enabling access to justice reform programme and described it as an "ambitious" programme of reform aimed at ensuring that:

Is the Department on track to deliver the plan in association with that programme?

Mrs Long: No, we are not on track, because, as the Member will know as a member of the Committee, we have had to re-profile the delivery of that programme, first, because of the intensive engagement that we have had around fee structures and, secondly, because the way in which we were going to deal with cases left on the books was a matter of contention for the CBA, as I mentioned earlier. While I do not believe that the overall income through legal aid is a significant amount of money, it was better to put that to the end of the programme rather than where it was, which was nearer the start of the programme.

We have also had to consider reform of the taxing system, because that has become a more acute challenge for the Department and our finances in terms of transparency and accountability, which are at the heart of everything that we are trying to achieve. It is public money, and it has to be accounted for meaningfully. People may have a sense of what they are worth, but I have to account for that in a more substantive way than by people simply pulling numbers out of the air. I need to understand what the hourly rate is, how that is applied in different cases and how many hours are worked on those cases so that we can have a better and transparent understanding of why people are being paid those fees. That has delayed the implementation of the rest of the road map.

Where we have had the opportunity to accelerate some of those elements, we have taken it. For example, the PACE issues and the parole pilot are two areas that we have been able to bring forward more quickly. There were also issues around travel costs for rural solicitors in particular, who identified those issues when I met them directly. We went away, found a solution to that and implemented that too.

Are we keeping pace with where we had hoped to be when we introduced the plan? No. Are we keeping the Committee informed of how we have had to review the plan and why? We are, absolutely. We are still committed to the overall direction. It was not a plan that I plucked out of the air; first and foremost, it was a plan that Tom Burgess recommended. That was part of it, but other studies were done at the same time by the Department and others. The plan was a collation of that work, and it was consulted on extensively. We have to go with the evidence that we have and move in the right direction. In the long term, that will secure the sustainability and viability of the profession and the courts. At the moment, I simply feel that we are not getting the reciprocation of effort to deliver on that.

Miss Hargey: I thank the Minister for her statement. As you highlighted, Minister, the criminal Bar has a right to take strike action, as any sector does. That said, we want to avoid that action. I was concerned when you said that you had rejected the Lady Chief Justice's suggestion of mediation. There are concerns that junior barristers, in particular, do not go into criminal work because the rate of pay is not of the standard that they may get in other areas. That is a concern, particularly for female junior barristers. It has been two months since the Lady Chief Justice made that suggestion, and we are no further on, so the working group is obviously not working. I ask you to reconsider the suggestion of mediation.

Mrs Long: I set out a few reasons why mediation is not the answer. First, the action was announced within four days of the criminal Bar agreeing the road map and that the working group would continue to take the issues forward. There is no consistency. You cannot negotiate with people who move from here to there and from there to here so that you cannot tell what the next ask will be. On every occasion when people have raised issues with me, I have tried to lean in and deal with them, but it cannot keep being a moveable feast. I sit with one group from the Bar who tell me one set of issues and agree that we need to deal with them, and then, when that group resigns, another group from the Bar comes in and we end up getting another narrative altogether. Mediation will not fix that. That is the first thing to say.

Secondly, some of the issues here are non-negotiable. I cannot give an uplift to fees without evidence. I have a duty to ensure value for money. Those are non-negotiable points. The issue of paying people out of the public purse twice for the same time is non-negotiable. Mediation will not solve that.

Thirdly, I went to Judge Burgess and asked for his advice on mediation. I did so out of courtesy, because he has invested in the process intensively over the past year and, I would argue, has brought forward significant change not just for the criminal Bar but for the Bar as a whole. His advice was that the first thing that would happen with mediation is that people would be asked for the very evidence that they have not presented to the working group. That block to resolving the issue will not go away because there is mediation. That is the challenge that we face. In 2016, when there was mediation with the Department, the scenario was different: the Department was planning to apply significant cuts to legal aid and went for mediation in the absence of any other structure. It actually reduced the cuts that it was planning to legal aid. The situation is different.

The truth about younger members of the profession is that they do not earn enough money because they do not get enough work. It is not the fees that are the problem but the hoarding of cases by senior members of the profession and the fact that junior barristers do not get the opportunity to work. The refresher fee pilot was designed explicitly to ensure that we try, at each court tier, to move people up the court tiers so as not to have senior barristers dipping in and out for work in the Magistrates' Court and to ensure that that pathway is clear for junior barristers to gain experience. They can then get further experience as junior counsel in the Crown Courts and take over in that way. That was the purpose of the refresher fee pilot, but we could not get agreement, because people still wanted to get a full-day fee and, during the time that they were being paid, to hop about other courts and claim additional fees for that work. That is not sustainable or negotiable: it cannot happen.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you so much for outlining the issues that are at play here, Minister. I am mindful of my constituents and particularly of the Mitchell family, who lost their beautiful daughter Chloe in June 2023 and who have spoken about preparing themselves for an imminent trial. I ask this with them and their trauma in mind: what steps have been put in place to support victims and witnesses during this time of uncertainty?

Mrs Long: I mentioned the various third-sector organisations — the community and voluntary groups — that already provide that service, whether that be the victim and witness care unit in the PPS, Victim Support, the NSPCC young witness service, ASSIST NI, Nexus, Women's Aid or others. All those organisations are in constant contact with the PPS and trying to reach out to each person about their case in order to give them the necessary reassurance and support. You are right that it is a profound disappointment. There are a number of cases that have been identified publicly, such as the murders of Natalie McNally and Chloe Mitchell and others, in which people have been waiting for a long time to see justice done. They will be delayed. Cases are being delayed in which people are still at risk of harm.

From my perspective, there are two things. The first is that we will be meeting voluntary and community sector partners. I have invited them, along with the PPS, to meet me to discuss where they may be able to provide more support as an interim measure. The second is that the PPS and others, including Victim Support and the victim and witness care unit, have been looking very carefully at the range of cases being delayed in order to identify the most sensitive cases, the cases in which the victims and witnesses are most vulnerable and the cases that have been in process for the longest time in order to determine whether, at the very least, a derogation could be negotiated on those cases. Members will recall that that was tried last time, unsuccessfully — I think that, in the end, only one case received a derogation. I do not wish to prejudge the outcome, however, and hope that, notwithstanding my desire for the Criminal Bar Association to resume full service with immediate effect, it will, at the very least, look favourably at the cases identified and allow them to proceed through the courts.

Mr O'Toole: It is important, first, to say that our thoughts are with anybody who has been affected. It is very difficult for the victims and witnesses. It is also important to say that you, Minister, have managed this relationship for most of the past half decade. Your party has effectively had a monopoly on the Department for a decade and a half, so a breakdown of the relationship with the Criminal Bar Association is on you as well as on it.

I genuinely struggle to see what the difficulty is with mediation. You said that it would be a slight on Judge Burgess to enter into mediation, as the Criminal Bar Association has asked. Why, then, is it not a slight on the Lady Chief Justice, Siobhan Keegan, to not enter into mediation, despite it being her recommendation? If it is not good to slight Judge Burgess, why is it good to slight the Lady Chief Justice? Why is it better to come to the Chamber and do more than an hour of litigation of a key stakeholder rather than getting into a room with it to discuss the situation?
7

Mrs Long: First, I have not done more than an hour, because you only get an hour for a statement, so that is incorrect. Secondly, I am not litigating anything. I am doing my duty to keep Members of the Chamber apprised of important issues affecting my Department. That is my duty. Had I not come today, somebody would no doubt have submitted a question for urgent oral answer and then claimed that I had to be dragged here to give Members the information. I have come voluntarily to update Members, as is my responsibility, and I will take no criticism for doing so.

When it comes to mediation, to be clear, there is no slight on the Lady Chief Justice. She did not recommend mediation. She suggested mediation as an option in trying to resolve this dispute, and she did so for good reasons, which I have now laid out, I think, three times during this conversation with Members. I do not believe that mediation would take us any further than the current process. Bear in mind that, four days before this escalation was announced, everyone agreed that Judge Burgess's working group was the way to resolve all the outstanding issues and that they would engage fully with that. A month before, they sat in a room with me. Whilst the Member may wish to make judgements about the breakdown in relationships, I sat in that room and we had a very cordial meeting at which promises were made and undertakings were given on my part to deliver the fee uplift in January and ensure that it was backdated and also to meet quarterly with the working group, if that would aid progress. I was given reciprocal undertakings that people would go away and spend the month developing the evidence base that is needed for the refresher pilot, but that did not happen. Mediation will work only if both parties are fully engaged in delivering the resolution, and, as we stand here today, there is no remaining impediment to the criminal Bar returning to full service. Every single ask that it had regarding the partial withdrawal of service has been met. I have done everything that it asked me to do that I can do.

Therefore, with respect, I do not think that this is about relationships between me and the Bar, but perhaps the fact that, only days after setting out those commitments to me, the entire criminal Bar committee resigned en masse and was replaced by another group that then signed up to the road map and called for this action says more about relationships within the Bar than it does about relationships between the Bar and me. I want to work with the criminal Bar, and I want to deliver for victims. That is my job, and that is what I am focused on doing.

Mr Dickson: Minister, thank you for your statement. Can you set the record straight by telling the House your response to those who claim that it is in excess of 20 years since the rates were set?

Mrs Long: The 16% uplift that I applied retrospectively to 1 December 2024 was not applied to rates from 2005. It was applied to rates that were agreed in the mediation with the criminal Bar in 2016. People are saying to me, "Go into mediation with the criminal Bar". David Ford did that. He went into mediation and they agreed a fee structure, and now the Bar wants to unpick that and go back to 2005 when devolution had not even happened. It wants me to apply an uplift based on a 2005 fee structure that no longer exists and has no bearing on reality as of today. I applied the 16% uplift on the basis that Judge Burgess asked for it, which was that it would be applied from the 2016 fees.

You cannot compare apples and oranges. The nature of the business that the Bar does and the cases that it takes has changed, and, in that time, the fees have also changed. Some have gone up, and some have gone down. There will be areas of work that are more lucrative for members of the Bar and areas of work that are less lucrative. In applying the uplift across all factions of the Bar and across every part of the system, I have tried to ensure that the whole system is viable and that everyone is fairly remunerated. The notion that we can unpick the negotiations back to 2005 is not just illogical but undermines the call for a mediated settlement, because it would be unpicking a mediated settlement that dates back 10 years.

Mr Carroll: Minister, I am concerned that, for the people who need trials to start to get justice, there seems to be a strategy of placing blame for delays to justice at the feet of barristers who have taken strike action. I will leave it up to the Minister to say where that strategy is coming from. The strike is about addressing a broken system and allowing working-class and poor people access to justice. Will the Minister confirm that the rate that Departments pay their lawyers went up by 25% recently, and that the barristers who represent poor people are only being offered a 16% increase in real terms?

Mrs Long: Had the Member been listening earlier, he would have heard me answer that question. The fees and hourly rates for people who do government work are lower. If they want to go to hourly rates for legal aid cases, I can assure the Member that there will be major savings. If they want to work for those hourly rates in legal aid cases, I am up for that. I would be quite happy to go down that route, but that has been discounted by the CBA.

The Member has a particular political perspective, but, with all due respect, at no point have I heard the CBA raising concerns that poor people cannot afford justice. I have heard the CBA complaining about its own plight, but not about poor people not being able to afford justice. That is my responsibility and focus. Those are the people who, through the programme of legal aid reform, I am trying to ensure can access legal aid. The strike is not about them; it is about what the barristers get paid. It is about what goes into their bank accounts at the end of the month; it is not about those who need legal aid not being able to get it. If it were, we would be having a very different conversation.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Minister. That concludes questions on the statement.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I have received notification from the members of the Business Committee of a motion to extend the sitting past 7.00 pm under Standing Order 10(3A).

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Assembly may sit until 9.00 pm this evening if necessary. I ask Members to take their ease for a moment while we get ready for the next item of business.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has agreed that there will be no time limit on the debate. I call the Minister to open the debate on the motion.

Mr Muir: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the opportunity to bring the motion to the House. The Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) operates an annual charging policy for its regulatory activities. The charging policy covers eight separate charging schemes, of which the waste management charging scheme is one. The waste management charging scheme requires legislation to be laid to make it operational. The NIEA charging policy is governed by the principles of 'Managing Public Money Northern Ireland' and operates under a full cost recovery model. That means that the NIEA charges operators the full costs of regulatory activities: they are not subsidised by the taxpayer.

The fees and charges covered by the charging policy are uplifted annually. They are normally uplifted by the GDP deflator figure that is issued by His Majesty's Treasury in December each year. However, the charging policy allows for the Department to apply any other mechanism that it deems appropriate to ensure full cost recovery and prevent deficits being paid from the public purse. After analysis by NIEA officials, it was determined that the fees and charges for 2025-26 should be uplifted by 6·19%. That covers the employers' pay costs, and the uplift applies to schemes in the NIEA charging policy 2024-25.

Had the NIEA used the 2025-26 GDP deflator figure of 2·39%, as issued by Treasury, the agency would have lost an estimated £750,000 in fees and charges across all charging schemes, which would have been paid from the public purse.

Normally, the statutory rule (SR) required to bring the waste management charging scheme into operation each year is laid by negative resolution. However, the regulations are made under schedule 4 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which stipulates that those regulations will be subject to the draft affirmative resolution procedure unless they are only altering a fee or charge to reflect changes in the value of money. Therefore, because fees and charges are being uplifted by using a figure that is not a standard inflationary measure, the draft Waste (Fees and Charges) (Amendment No.2) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025 are required to be laid by draft affirmative resolution.

The work of the NIEA is very important to the protection of our environment. It is fundamental to human safety and to underpin a successful economy. The uplift is required for the NIEA to deliver an effective regulatory system, protect the environment and promote sustainable growth in Northern Ireland. Accordingly, I commend the statutory rule to the House.

Mr Butler (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): When the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs met on 16 October 2025, we received an oral briefing from DAERA officials on the SL1 regarding the draft statutory rule. The officials briefing the Committee were from the waste legislation branch and the environmental resources policy division. The Committee heard that the Northern Ireland Environment Agency operates an annual charging policy for its regulatory activities, covering eight separate charging schemes, one of which is the waste management charging scheme, and that legislation is needed to bring the scheme into operation each year.

The Committee noted that the NIEA charging policy is a model of full-cost recovery and is based on 'Managing Public Money Northern Ireland'. Those activities are not subsidised by the taxpayer, and the fees and charges are uplifted annually. The Committee heard that fees are normally uplifted by the GDP deflator figure that the Treasury issues in December, but that, after careful analysis by the NIEA finance branch, it was proposed that the fee charges for 2025-26 should be uplifted by 6·19%. The Committee heard that, if the NIEA used the 2025-26 GDP deflator figure of 2·39%, it would lose an estimated £750,000 in fees and charges across all charging schemes. Those would have had to be paid by the public purse, a point that, as you will understand, the Committee was extremely interested in.

Officials advised that the SR to bring the waste management charging scheme into operation each year is usually laid by negative resolution, as outlined by the Minister here this evening. However, the regulations are made under schedule 4 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, meaning that they are subject to the draft affirmative resolution procedure, unless they are only altering a fee or charge to reflect changes in the value of money. The Committee noted that, as the fees and charges are being uplifted beyond a standard inflationary measure, the SR is required to be laid by draft affirmative resolution. We should be grateful for that.

The Committee then had a question-and-answer session with officials. I will not go over them all, but there were queries about the rationale for the increase of 6·19%. Officials explained that, in the main, the increase is due to the pay increases for civil servants, as most of the cost increases are staff-related. That, in turn, has pushed the regulatory costs up. Some members expressed concern that increased fees could have a negative impact on small-scale or community-led recycling initiatives and queried whether there are supports or exemptions available for them. The Committee also noted that the Department had felt that it was not necessary to conduct an equality impact assessment in this instance and asked for that to be reviewed in future. Officials responded that that may be undertaken at the next review stage of the current regulatory fees and charges policy. The Committee then agreed that it was content to support the SR as drafted.

At its meeting on 6 November, the Committee considered the SL5 and the draft SR. The Committee noted that there had been no changes since the SL1 was submitted to the Committee. Since then, the Examiner of Statutory Rules' report has been issued, and it did not draw the SR to the special attention of the Assembly. The Committee agrees to recommend that the draft Waste (Fees and Charges) (Amendment No.2) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025 be approved by the Assembly.

Ms Finnegan: I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of the draft regulations. They are a necessary and practical step towards ensuring that our waste management system is effective, properly resourced and aligned with modern environmental standards. Updating fees and charges is essential for maintaining strong regulatory oversight, including permitting compliance work and enforcement against those who flout the rules. Although the proposals are technical, they reflect a much wider challenge. Waste management, recycling, resource efficiency and environmental protection all sit across different areas of government, and no Department can tackle those issues on its own.

In order to make real progress, we need structured and sustained cross-departmental cooperation. That means shared responsibility, joint planning and a unified approach to policy development and delivery. If we are serious about reducing landfill use, tackling illegal dumping and improving recycling rates, waste policy must be embedded across government. The regulations will help to ensure that the environmental regulator is properly funded, but they also highlight the need for a coordinated, whole-of-government effort to deliver the ambitious environmental outcomes that our communities need and deserve. The measures are proportionate and necessary, and they are grounded in good practice. I am pleased to support them today.

Mr Muir: I thank the Members who contributed to the debate. I welcome Gareth Wilson to the Chamber and look forward to working with him on the AERA Committee. To summarise, the Waste (Fees and Charges) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025 will bring into operation the waste management charging scheme for 2025-26. That is required in order for the NIEA to charge for its regulatory activities in relation to waste management. The scheme includes an annual uplift to the fees and charges, which allows the NIEA to operate under full cost recovery, as is required by the principles of 'Managing Public Money Northern Ireland'. I commend the statutory rule to the House.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has agreed that there will be no time limit on the debate.

Mr Muir: I am grateful for the opportunity to move this legislative consent motion (LCM) on the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill. It is an important piece of legislation that will enable the United Kingdom to implement the UN biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement, which is a landmark treaty under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The agreement represents a global commitment to protect marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction — the high seas — which cover nearly half of the planet's surface. Those areas are critical for climate regulation, fisheries and biodiversity, yet they have historically lacked a comprehensive governance framework.

The biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement closes that gap by introducing rules on marine genetic resources, environmental impact assessments and area-based management tools. The UK signed that agreement in 2023 and is now taking steps to ratify and implement it through the Bill. The provisions of the Bill extend to all parts of the UK, including Northern Ireland, and some of the provisions engage devolved matters. The Bill provides enabling powers to implement international commitments under the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement. On 20 November 2025, the Executive agreed that consent should be sought for the clauses in the Bill that deal with devolved matters.

I will briefly summarise the clauses. Clauses 2 to 9 deal with marine genetic resources. They define collection and utilisation projects, establish a UK database and give the Secretary of State power to make regulations. Those provisions engage devolved matters, such as scientific research and education, and will apply to a small number of people who work in Northern Ireland universities or research organisations.

Clause 11 provides the Secretary of State with the power to make regulations to implement area-based management tools following decisions of the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction Conference of the Parties. A person from Northern Ireland participating in a project on the high seas will be required to comply with those regulations. Clause 13 relates to directions to UK craft, and Northern Ireland craft will be required to comply with those directions.

Supporting the legislative consent motion ensures that Northern Ireland plays its part in delivering global commitments to ocean protection. It strengthens our reputation as a responsible environmental steward and provides a framework that will enable Northern Ireland universities and research organisations to participate in projects on the high seas. The Bill will not impose immediate changes on Northern Ireland. Rather, it provides enabling powers that may be used in future to implement international obligations. Any secondary legislation made under those powers would be subject to full Assembly scrutiny. If consent is not granted, the UK cannot fully implement the agreement across all jurisdictions. That would undermine the UK's ability to meet its international obligations and could damage Northern Ireland's reputation. It could also create practical difficulties for Northern Ireland universities and research organisations that have an interest in projects on the high seas.

Since I tabled the motion, the UK Government tabled amendments that are being considered today in Westminster. Those amendments do not change the policy intent of the Bill but, rather, strengthen Northern Ireland's role by requiring the Secretary of State to consult DAERA before making regulations under clauses 9 and 11, by giving DAERA powers to make regulations for devolved matters that are equivalent to the regulation-making powers that the Secretary of State has under clauses 9 and 11 and by setting Northern Ireland-specific procedures for those regulations, including emergency provisions. Those changes are positive. They do, however, fall outside the scope of the motion before us today, which refers to the Bill as introduced. If the amendments are made, I will bring a subsequent legislative consent motion to the Executive. Hopefully, they will agree that promptly, and it will also be brought to this place so that any amendments can be dealt with. The amendments would give DAERA concurrent powers to make regulations in devolved areas and the power to impose a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to consult DAERA before making regulations that deal with devolved matters.

In summary, the motion is about enabling Northern Ireland to contribute to global efforts to protect marine biodiversity. It is about ensuring that our marine environment is safeguarded for future generations while supporting sustainable economic opportunities. I commend the motion to the House, and I look forward to receiving Members' support for it.

Mr Butler (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs about the LCM on the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill. Members will have read the Committee's report, which was published on 12 December. On behalf of my three children, who are avid supporters of SpongeBob SquarePants, it is absolutely vital — all joking aside — that we look after our marine environment. Whether we have jurisdiction over it or not, it is incumbent on us all to take the legislative consent motion seriously.

We considered correspondence from the Department seeking the Committee's views on the LCM, which had been laid on 24 November. The Committee also had before it a copy of the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill. I will refer to it as the BBNJ Bill, because it is quite a mouthful. The Bill's explanatory notes are provided by the Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs. The Bill's broad aim is to address a governance gap that exists in areas beyond national jurisdiction. We noted that the Bill contains 26 clauses. The Minister provided some detail on some of them — clauses 2 to 9, clause 11 and clause 13 — and he engaged the LCM process in Northern Ireland, as the clauses deal with devolved matters, including scientific research and education, hence my nod to my young children.

The Committee noted that the Bill facilitates the UK's implementation of the international BBNJ agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. That convention covers marine genetic resources, area-based management tools and environmental impact assessments in areas beyond national jurisdiction, which are defined as being the high seas and the seabed and ocean floor beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.

The Committee also noted that the Bill makes provision for the designation of marine-protected areas in areas beyond national jurisdiction in order to promote conservation and the sustainable use of marine biological diversity. The Bill aims to regulate the sharing and use of marine genetic resources, including marine DNA, and their use in pharmaceutical and medicinal research. Lastly, the Bill seeks to amend existing regulatory regimes and environmental impact assessment regulations in order to better manage significant impacts on the marine environment.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you should have declared an interest as someone who got closer to the marine seabed than most of us have.

The Committee then agreed that, in principle, it had no objection to the LCM moving forward. Furthermore, on 4 December 2025, the Committee again considered the LCM and a written briefing from DAERA's marine fisheries division. At that meeting, the Committee also had the House of Commons Library research briefing entitled 'Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill (2024-25)'.

On 11 December 2025, the Committee agreed to support the Minister in seeking the Assembly's endorsement of the legislative consent motion, and our report was published on 12 December.

Mr McCrossan: This is an important motion. The SDLP supports it because biodiversity loss is one of the most pressing global challenges that we face. Climate change, habitat degradation and ecosystem collapse already have serious consequences for food security, climate stability and livelihoods. The oceans play a vital role in regulating our climate and sustaining life, yet much of the high seas remains inadequately protected.

While Northern Ireland does not border the high seas, we are not insulated from what happens there. We are part of the maritime island economy and a shared global environmental system. Damage to marine ecosystems affects fish stocks, climate patterns and environmental resilience, all of which have real consequences for our communities. The Bill gives effect to an international agreement that introduces practical and necessary measures, including maritime protected areas, environmental impact assessments for activities on the high seas and fair arrangements for accessing and sharing the benefits of marine genetic resources. The provisions are grounded in scientific evidence and respond to long-standing weaknesses in global marine governance.

The SDLP has always supported environmental protection that is based on cooperation, science and, of course, fairness. This legislation is not about stopping activity for the sake of it; it is about ensuring that activity takes place within clear, credible rules that are protect ecosystems while providing certainty for research and responsible development.

We also support the legislative consent motion because it reflects the importance of Northern Ireland playing its part in meeting international environmental obligations. Extending the provisions here ensures consistency across the UK and demonstrates our commitment to collective global action on environmental protection.

Crucially, the SDLP rejects the false choice between environmental protection and economic development. Strong environmental standards, when properly designed and applied, enable development to proceed responsibly. Weak or inconsistent standards undermine confidence, increase conflict and store up greater costs for the future.

The Bill establishes international frameworks that allow development to take place within defined limits. The approach is entirely consistent with our approach here at home. Development should happen, but it must be done properly, with mitigation, oversight and accountability built in from the outset.

There is an important issue of fairness at the heart of the legislation, and marine genetic resources that may have significant scientific and medical value should not become the preserve of a small number of powerful interests. The Bill promotes fair and equitable sharing of benefits, ensuring that scientific progress serves the common good.

The environmental crisis is not only ecological; it is social and economic. Biodiversity loss disproportionately affects those least responsible for it. International cooperation is essential if we are to avoid repeating patterns of exploitation in shared global commons such as the oceans.

The SDLP also welcomes the emphasis on environmental impact assessments. Evidence-based decision-making is absolutely essential. Assessing impacts before damage occurs is always preferable to attempting to repair harm after the fact, particularly in fragile marine ecosystems. Environmental standards must be applied consistently and credibly and should never be used selectively or opportunistically. The SDLP supports environmental protection because it strengthens decision-making and public confidence, not because it provides a convenient veto.

For Northern Ireland, endorsing the legislative consent motion is about recognising an environmental responsibility that does not stop at our borders and that our actions contribute to a wider global effort to protect shared resources. For those reasons, we are content to support the motion.

Ms Finnegan: We support the legislative consent motion. The Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill gives domestic effect to the high seas treaty, the first truly global agreement to protect marine biodiversity in areas beyond any state's national jurisdiction.

The clauses for which consent is sought relate to enforcement powers; environmental impact assessment requirements; licensing and monitoring of activities in the high seas; and designation and management of marine protected areas. Those matters, while largely operationalised at an international level, require the cooperation and participation of all jurisdictions across these islands if the treaty is to function effectively.

For us in the North, endorsing the provisions is important and appropriate. Our island has naturally always depended on the sea. Our fishing communities, marine economy and unique biodiversity, from deep-sea corals to migratory species, are all impacted by what happens far beyond our waters. The health of the ocean does not recognise borders, nor does the damage caused by overexploitation, pollution or the accelerating climate crisis. That places sustainability, conservation and transparency in scientific cooperation at the heart of how humanity interacts with the oceans. Extending the provisions to the North ensures that we are full partners in that global effort. It also aligns with our environmental commitments. Sinn Féin has made it clear that protecting biodiversity, acting on climate obligations and safeguarding our natural heritage for future generations are not optional extras but essential responsibilities. Supporting this extension reinforces our role as a responsible and outward-looking Government who recognise the urgency of the ecological crisis.

The clauses before us do not impose undue burdens; rather, they provide a legal certainty that is needed for agencies and enforcement bodies to play their part in upholding international standards, preventing illegal exploitation and contributing to global environmental stewardship. Agreeing to the extension is the right thing to do scientifically, morally and environmentally. I therefore commend the motion to the Assembly.

Mr Blair: Before I comment on the LCM, I too take the opportunity to welcome Gareth Wilson to the Assembly and wish him well as he takes up his role on the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee.

As my colleagues on that Committee, including the Chair, have already explained, the legislative consent motion seeks to ratify the extension of the provisions of the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill to Northern Ireland. While the LCM may appear mainly technical, it is nonetheless important. In practical terms, it extends the rules that are already applied in UK waters into the high seas. It will create a framework to establish area-based management tools and designate marine protected areas beyond our national jurisdiction. That is an important step in ensuring that our environmental protections do not stop at the edge of our territorial waters. The provisions are targeted in scope to devolved matters of the Assembly, such as scientific research and education. That includes emergency measures when quick action is necessary, such as during a natural event or human-caused disaster that has caused or could cause significant or irreversible harm to marine biodiversity.

The Bill is expected to affect only a small number of researchers at universities and research institutions in Northern Ireland, particularly those involved in marine science and related disciplines. It will ensure that our scientific work is conducted to the highest environmental standards and is consistent with our international obligations. It is therefore important that we support the LCM. By doing so, we will enable the UK Government to enact the Bill in a way that applies fully to Northern Ireland. For those reasons, the Alliance Party will support the motion. We believe that it represents a necessary and proportionate measure that will contribute to greater protection of marine biodiversity, which is of vital and enduring importance to our environment.

Mr Muir: I thank all the Members who contributed to the debate. I hope that the Assembly consents to the Bill's extension to Northern Ireland, thereby providing a legislative framework that enables Northern Ireland researchers to participate in projects on the high seas. I acknowledge that there will be a further LCM on this. Hopefully, Members will be able to support it. I appreciate the interest that has been shown in this and the importance of it. I hope that Members will support me in the passage of the LCM.

Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has agreed that there will be no time limit on the debate.

I call the Chairperson to open the debate on the motion. Over to you, Nick.

Mr Mathison: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will not take up too much of Members' time; hopefully, the issues are reasonably straightforward.

The Committee for Education decided its timeline for the Committee Stage of the General Teaching Council Bill while giving care and attention to the competing Committee priorities and to the crucial components of good scrutiny of legislation. Considering all the relevant factors, the Committee agreed a motion to extend the stage until 27 May 2026.

The Committee took a pre-legislative and introductory briefing and received correspondence from departmental officials. We received procedural advice from the Committee Clerk and Bill Clerks and then mapped out what we considered to be a reasonable time frame for effective Committee scrutiny. The Committee has already launched a Citizen Space survey on the provisions of the Bill and has invited all relevant educational stakeholders to submit written submissions on its proposals.

The Committee appreciates that a Bill on the regulatory body for teachers may be considered a fairly niche area of interest, with feedback coming from some teachers that even they are not always completely clear on the functions of the General Teaching Council for Northern Ireland (GTCNI), but it has been made clear to the Committee that it is a body that is in need of substantial reform. There has been debate on whether the body required winding up entirely and being reconstituted as something else, but the Minister's legislative proposals are to reform the body and alter the structures within which it operates. The Committee will undoubtedly hear evidence on what the appropriate approach is, but a body that effectively defines professional standards for our teaching professionals is carrying out a very important function, if not always a well-known, public-facing function, so it is vital that we ensure that best practice in governance arrangements is in place for that body.

The Committee intends to carry out scrutiny through the following core components of a Committee Stage: a call for evidence, which has gone out; the taking of oral evidence sessions on the substance of the Bill; Committee deliberation on the evidence received; and further engagement with departmental officials to answer queries arising from evidence sessions and members' consideration of the Bill. There will then be time for the development and consideration of potential Committee amendments, followed by informal and formal clause-by-clause scrutiny and approval of the Bill. The consideration and approval of the final Committee report to the Assembly would then be the final stage of the process. The Committee believes that it has designed its time limit to permit adequate time to complete each of those steps thoroughly, but it will aim to complete the task before the extension date, if appropriate and comprehensive scrutiny allows.

I think that all Members will agree that the current rationale setting out the 30-day term for a Committee Stage in Standing Order 33(2) is not entirely clear. We are not aware of many Committee Stages, if any, that complete within that timescale, so it is entirely standard and normal practice for Committees to extend the stage. On that basis, I am content that, on balance, the Committee Stage extension to 27 May 2026 is reasonable and proportionate and builds in adequate time for the consideration of all the relevant factors in the Bill's legislative proposals.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): As no other Members have indicated that they wish to speak, we will go straight to the vote.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Members, take your ease for a moment while we change the top Table.

Ms Ferguson: I beg to move

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

Ms Ferguson: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Our motion is about choosing to apply common sense and improve the communication, engagement and support that is available to local businesses, which would be to the benefit of the economy as a whole.

I will not labour the point this evening, but I begin by reminding everyone that, despite the significant opposition here to Brexit, we were dragged out of Europe against the democratic wishes of the majority of our citizens. That has brought with it new challenges and technical issues, particularly for those who are navigating hurdles in trade and regulatory alignment. Whilst the previous British Government were hostile to the concept of an EU office in Belfast, the current Government have also declined to comment. That should surprise no one here, as Britain acts in its own interests only. However, for the people of Ireland, our businesses and our economic potential, the reality is that the opening of an EU office in Belfast will provide a much-needed channel for local businesses and citizens. We should all want to enhance any and every opportunity and practical step that there is to strengthen the confidence and security of local businesses and traders, whilst making this region a pivotal location for increased exports, additional good jobs and economic growth.

I briefly acknowledge those in TradeNI who have emphasised that it would help them greatly to have someone on the ground who is immediately contactable. I also recognise the MEPs who were part of the European Parliament's delegation to the EU-UK Parliamentary Partnership Assembly and, rightly, recognised and emphasised the potential of such an office to support people and businesses in getting assistance to navigate legislation that is applicable to them and benefit wholly from the unique opportunities that arise from dual market access here.

We are over half a decade on from the British Government's rejection of the request by the EU and the pro-Remain parties here to have a permanent EU office in Belfast. Our call remains as steadfast as ever, despite the passage of time. Simply put, we will continue to advocate for sensitivity to Irish interests and the needs of our people, including the many with a birthright to Irish citizenship and, by virtue of that, to European citizenship.

To finish, I direct my remarks at those parties in the Chamber who may wish to continue to put their heads in the sand and who fear this constructive step, alongside the more recently elected Government in Britain, whose silence on the matter is deafening. We hear the concerns and the voices of people, traders and businesses here who require additional support. We advocate for the benefit of our people and our economy, and, therefore, we once again say that you have a duty to act to establish an EU office in Belfast and to allow it to carry out technical and diplomatic support functions for our people. As we enter 2026, with its reminder that we are a decade on from the 2016 referendum, have you honestly yet to recognise that denial does not alter the reality and that your continued wilful ignorance is not a strategy?

Whilst we are a decade on from being dragged out against our will, we refuse to allow that to manifest in continuing ignorance of the needs of people and businesses. Let us all work collectively to deliver an EU office in Belfast.

Mr Brooks: In following the previous contributor, I remind people that the UK left the European Union as part of the UK's largest ever democratic exercise — something that you will not see in places such as Venezuela that other parties have tended to support until now.

Today, we are asked to consider a motion calling for the establishment of an EU office in Northern Ireland. The motion supposes that that will allow businesses to benefit from the so-called advantages of dual market access, and it speaks to aspects beyond the proposal for a pseudo consulate, but we know that, for those on the Benches opposite, the issue is more about symbolism. In fact, that has been more or less admitted. It is about bread and circuses. It is to add a facade and the perception of difference and a European connection without changing anything in reality. What they seek is a visible symbol of the barriers between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom through the protocol.

The proposal would do little to address the real challenges facing businesses that cannot directly influence the laws that govern them. I find it difficult to believe that the major stumbling block for any major business considering investment in Northern Ireland and wishing to grasp that great white elephant of the protocol — the legion of so-called dual market access benefits — is the lack of a physical office for the EU in Belfast city centre.

Members will know that, for example, analysis by Chartered Accountants Ireland states that our higher rate of corporation tax is the primary disincentive for those who choose not to invest in Northern Ireland, whatever relationships we have with the EU. They will know, too, that, when asked, Invest NI failed to identify a single business that has come to Northern Ireland as a result of dual market access. At a recent Economy Committee meeting, Invest NI could not provide a single example of foreign direct investment that was linked to dual market access. In fact, it stated explicitly:

Over a year ago —.

Mr Delargy: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brooks: I will make progress, thank you, not least because I will probably run out of time.

Over a year ago, its chief executive confirmed that there was no evidence of such investment. Nothing has changed.

Mr Honeyford: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brooks: No, I will not, thank you.

Dual market access has been mythical. There is only so long that you can sing of something's virtue while it remains un-evidenced. We were previously told that it was down to the lack of a Government, yet here we are without any further evidence: it is all a bit like the emperor has no clothes. Businesses can see and, more importantly, count the real costs of the Windsor framework, but the benefits remain impossible to quantify. Was there ever a more hyped up example of jam tomorrow than that very element? Indeed, Invest has described a "seamless" trading relationship with both jurisdictions, which, I am sure, many local companies think is the stuff of Alice's looking glass.

The Federation of Small Businesses (FSB), too, has shown that the Windsor framework is creating severe disruption and fracturing the UK internal market: 58% of businesses trading between GB and NI report moderate to significant challenges, and over a third have ceased trading altogether rather than face new compliance demands.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brooks: No, I will not, thank you.

Those are not technical issues but barriers that drive up the cost of transport, logistics and production and ultimately increase prices for consumers. An EU office will not change that. Can other parties not acknowledge the disadvantage that that creates for local businesses throughout the supply chain?

In October, there was a report from Queen's University. I have to admit that I have not often quoted David Phinnemore and Katy Hayward's work on Brexit issues

; I do not pretend that it often lends itself to my position. Nevertheless, I hope that others in the Chamber take more notice more of the trends in their work than they would of me. The report noted that, now, only a minority — 48 % — still view the Windsor framework as being, on balance, a good thing for Northern Ireland. That figure is still higher than those who outright disagree, but, given that it is at its lowest since February 2023, it represents a downward trend.

It is worth restating that international relations are a reserved matter. Northern Ireland is represented in such matters, first and foremost, by our sovereign Government, the UK Government. I do not always agree with them or like their decisions, but such is the sovereignty of Government. The responsibility for promoting trade in Northern Ireland lies with elements of the Executive that work alongside the Department for Business and Trade on the mainland. That is how trade should be advanced within the UK. The Northern Ireland Executive clearly have a role in interpreting locally the realities of the rules under which we have been compelled to operate and in helping local businesses and individuals navigate the complexities that needlessly befall them under the continued application of EU law. There will be more on that tomorrow.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member's time is up.

Mr Dickson: The Alliance Party supports the motion, because it is important that we are wholly positive about the potential to establish an EU or, more correctly, a European External Action Service (EEAS) office in Belfast. As many will know, it is not a new concept. When the UK was a member of the EU, there were offices not just in Belfast but in Cardiff and Edinburgh. Now, of course, the EU has a diplomatic office in London, as the UK is no longer an EU member state.

The EU has European External Action Service offices in a wide range of non-EU states. Having an EU or EEAS office in Belfast surely cannot be considered a bad thing. The United Kingdom has a diplomatic presence in the EU, and vice versa, since we gave up our EU membership. No one's sovereignty is impacted on by having such an office here, and it does not affect anyone's nationality. It is simply the establishment of a range of important diplomatic trade services between countries, as has been done for centuries. Indeed, if set up, such an EU office would join similar diplomatic services that already have offices in Belfast, such as the Polish consulate, the Chinese consulate and the American consulate. In fact, the American consulate in Belfast is one of the oldest continuously operating US consulates in the world, and yet no one believes that having that office here negatively impacts on their identity.

If an EEAS office were to open in Belfast, surely it could only be a good thing. Our unique position as regards the EU compared with the rest of the world, with our dual market access, which the UK Government are often keen promote, and the ever-improving EU-UK relationships, means that an office in Belfast would help constituents and EU citizens who are resident here and benefit businesses. I recently asked in the Chamber for the First Minister to join me:

At that time, the First Minister agreed, noting that there is a "good-news story to tell" and that we must:

While I am extremely positive about the prospect of an EU office in Belfast, it would be remiss not to mention some of the issues caused by Brexit, those who championed it and the subsequent Windsor framework.

An EEAS office in Belfast would be well placed to help consumers with queries and businesses that operate from, in and out of Northern Ireland. It would allow the EU to see and feel at first hand the concerns about and benefits of the ever-evolving Brexit rules. It should not be lost on those in the Chamber that the Executive Office maintains a highly effective office, based in Brussels, that represents Northern Ireland in the EU. It might be worthwhile reflecting on its aims, which are:

We really should be telling the world that Northern Ireland is open for business and ensuring that businesses are best able to navigate our dual market access, which is something that could be of benefit to the whole of Northern Ireland. It needs to be a two-way street. That is why the Alliance Party supports the benefits of having a European Union office presence in Belfast for Northern Ireland.

Ms D Armstrong: The motion is presented as if it is about supporting businesses in Northern Ireland. On closer examination, however, it is clearly about politics and posturing, not practical solutions.

The motion tells us to celebrate dual market access, assures us:

and then calls for the creation of an EU office in Belfast. None of that addresses the day-to-day reality facing businesses across Northern Ireland that are grappling with regulatory divergence, rising costs and ongoing uncertainty.

Let me say plainly that I opposed Brexit. I have worked inside the European Commission, and I understand how the institutions function in practice. That experience gives me no confidence that creating another publicly funded EU structure in Belfast would meaningfully help local businesses. On the contrary, it would risk becoming yet another costly, bureaucratic talking shop, delivering headlines rather than tangible assistance.

Northern Ireland already has a dedicated delegation and office from the European Union. It even has "Northern Ireland" in its title: Delegation of the European Union to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. To operate an office in Northern Ireland would undermine the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, of which Northern Ireland is a constituent part.

Mr Dickson: Will the Member give way?

Ms D Armstrong: No. I will carry on for now, thank you.

We are already in a position in which EU regulations are being introduced in Northern Ireland incrementally, month by month, with limited democratic oversight. Businesses are forced to adapt continuously, often with little notice and less clarity. In that context, the last thing that they need is another layer of governance and another source of complexity.

The motion claims that the Windsor framework has mitigated the worst impacts of Brexit: many businesses would strongly dispute that assessment. The framework has reduced some immediate disruption, but it has entrenched divergence and uncertainty. That is not a stable platform for growth, investment or long-term planning. What businesses have repeatedly called for is clarity, simplicity and certainty. That is why Lord Murphy's recommendation of a single, comprehensive, online one-stop shop for trade guidance across the United Kingdom is the solution. Such a mechanism would provide immediate practical support without creating new layers of bureaucracy, new premises or new layers of administration.

Northern Ireland's economy has enormous potential, but growth will not be delivered by symbolic gestures or political theatre. It will be delivered by coherent policy, regulatory stability and genuine engagement with the business community. The motion, with its vague commitments and costly proposals for an EU office, does not meet those standards. The Ulster Unionist Party believes that our focus must remain on delivery, solutions and support for business that is real, not rhetorical. For those reasons, the UUP will not support the motion.

Mr O'Toole: I am pleased to be speaking again about the old specialist subject a decade on from Brexit, the thing that generated all the consequences that have flowed from it, as well as this debate. Indeed, we in the SDLP are not just pleased to be speaking about it but are flattered to be debating something that we put in the 'Our European Future' policy paper that we brought out in late 2024 and have advocated consistently. Imitation is, of course, the sincerest form of flattery, so we are pleased to support the motion, having put down similar ourselves.

Let us deal with the short term and the immediate term first. An EU office in Belfast is not some Trojan Horse for rejoining the EU. Since we are on that subject, however, I am unabashed about saying that I want to rejoin the EU. In practical terms, the only route to rejoining the EU is via a new Ireland, which is what I and my party are passionate about. Even if Members are agnostic on that question, however, and really do not want it to happen, they should still and can still be up for the EU Commission opening an office in Belfast: a European External Action Service office, as Mr Dickson so correctly depicted it. Why? Because Northern Ireland has a unique status.

The questions of citizenship and re-accession clearly do not apply to everybody in the Chamber or in Northern Ireland, but what applies everybody in the Chamber and everybody whom we represent, be they a business owner or an individual, is the fact that we are bound by a corpus of EU law — I support that, as do other parties in the Chamber — under the protocol, now called the Windsor framework, which was necessary to protect us from a hard border on the island and gives us — I think that I was the first person to use the phrase in the Chamber — "dual market access", a critical economic lever. I know that some people do not agree that that exists. They might give us an economic analysis of why the North has done better economically than Britain for the entire period of divergence when we have had this awful thing called "dual market access" and Britain has lost the deep access to the single market that we have.

In the short term, what would an EU office do? It would enable us to better manage being subject to a corpus of EU law that troubles lots of people in the Chamber. It does not trouble me in principle — it is a good thing — but I understand and acknowledge that there are specific issues that we need to work through for businesses and individuals. A more practical way of doing that, rather than having to convene or press representation — by the way, we also think that we should have representation in the European Parliament — is by being able to engage, as representatives and trade bodies, with the Commission office in Belfast. I genuinely do not see how that can be ideologically objectionable.

I am struck by Members on the opposite side of the Chamber who still roar and get frustrated about the consequences of Brexit. I acknowledge that they do not like the consequences of Brexit. I do not demean that. I do not like the fact that Brexit happened in the first place. It is why I am in the Chamber. If I am annoying you now, it is Brexit's fault, because I would not be here were it not for Brexit. Like a lot of people, I would not be considering and advocating a new Ireland back in Europe in the way that I am now were it not for Brexit. I have always believed in it, but the urgency would not be quite the same.

In the longer term, it is about getting back inside the European Union. I am unapologetic about the fact that I think that Northern Ireland's best future is in a new Ireland back inside the European Union. The events of the last couple of weeks, as big actors on the world stage prove themselves ever more determined to flout international law and to use force and the threat of force to get their way, make the case for countries that believe in multilateralism, international law and a rules-based system to work together to the mutual benefit of their citizens. That is what the European Union is all about. It is, as Hume said, the greatest peace project in human history. I want us back in there, not just at the margins, albeit with a useful set of rights, but at the heart of it. I do not want to be in a situation where big bullies on the world stage can simply throw their weight around. That is exactly what is happening. We even see people on this continent and in the UK having to bend the knee to that grotesque villain and clown in the White House. I want us, as part of a new Ireland, to be back inside a multilateral system so that Europe does not have to be bullied by the big actors on the world stage.

In the short term, before we get there, let us be practical and pragmatic and make the rules work better for all the people whom we represent. Even if you have no interest in ever rejoining the EU, surely you want the rules to work better. Surely you want us to have better access to decision makers inside the Commission. Surely you want the businesses of constituents whom you represent to have better, quicker access and answers. That would be delivered by Commission representation in Belfast. I struggle to understand how people who say that the rules are terrible do not want to make them slightly more practical.

Mr Delargy: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion and, indeed, to focus on the economic benefits of an EU office. In 2016, the people of the North voted to remain in Europe. They voted to stay and to have access to the benefits that it brought: increased economic opportunity through the single market and European funding pots; social and educational opportunities through Erasmus and myriad other skills programmes; a shared identity; and an opportunity for true reconciliation for all the people of Ireland. Our democratic mandate was ignored and undermined by a Tory Government supported by the TUV, the DUP and, of course, People Before Profit.

Mrs Dodds: Will the Member give way?

Mr Delargy: No, thank you.

Fortunately, we have two Sinn Féin MEPs, who continue to stand up for the people of the North in Europe.

Fast-forward 10 years, and the necessary steps have been put in place to mitigate the worst excesses of Brexit. The Windsor framework is now an established part of our economic and trading landscape. Nowhere else in these islands or in Europe has the dual market access that exists in the North. That is not a theoretical advantage; it is a practical advantage that many businesses already make use of.

The best way of monitoring the benefits is by looking at the growth in all-Ireland trade and trade with other countries in Europe. Recent InterTradeIreland statistics show that trade has risen from €2·8 billion and €1·9 billion respectively in 2015 to €10·6 billion and €9 billion respectively in 2024. If we are serious about economic growth, we need to be pragmatic, put our ideological blinkers to one side and recognise that all-Ireland trade and dual market access drive markets forward, increase our economy and create a uniquely advantageous position for the people of the North.

We can already see, through the work of Invest NI, strong and growing trading relationships with the European Union. Local companies export advanced manufacturing goods, agri-food products, life sciences, software and digital services to EU markets. EU firms continue to invest here, attracted by our skilled workforce, strong research base and established supply chains. Those relationships demonstrate trust and potential, and they can and should be deepened. In October 2024, an article published in the 'The European' stated:

and others have found the North

An EU office in Belfast would act as a single accessible point of engagement, offering guidance, clarity and direct support. It would complement the work already being done through Invest NI and other agencies. Together, they could form a strong hub that supports local businesses looking outwards to Europe while supporting international firms that are looking inwards to the North.

That also speaks to our international reputation, because the North of Ireland has a compelling story to tell: unique dual market access to the British and EU markets, a proven export base, world-class universities and a growing, innovative economy. Having an EU office here would reinforce and augment that sales pitch internationally. It would send a clear signal that the region is connected, credible and open for business. For international investors, particularly those seeking a foothold in both markets, that clarity matters. For local firms, especially those in border regions and the north-west, having direct access to EU expertise locally would be transformative. It would help firms to scale up, diversify their exports and build resilience in the face of wider economic uncertainty.

The proposal is about partnership. Having an EU office here would ensure that the lived economic realities of businesses and workers were better understood within EU institutions, and it would strengthen North/South cooperation and support the continued development of the all-Ireland economy, which benefits communities across the island. At a time when our economy needs certainty, confidence and growth, it is a sensible, constructive and forward-looking proposal. Sinn Féin therefore calls on Westminster and the European Union to engage positively with the proposal, work with the Executive and Invest NI and explore how an EU office in the North could —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up.

Mr Delargy: — benefit all of our citizens.

Ms Nicholl: In a world of so much change and uncertainty, there is comfort to be taken from the fact that we are able to have the same debates ad nauseam. At least we are consistent in that.

This is about being practical. We know that we have left the EU. A lot of us did not want that; some of us did. The result was chaos and uncertainty, and people have been doing their best to bring some stability. I know that the leader of the Opposition likes to take credit for the phrase "dual market access", and I am happy to put it on the record that I believe him in that assertion. All of us — not just him — should be talking about the opportunities. I agree with Pádraig that we have a compelling story to tell, but it is not just about the universities, skills and geography; it is about the people.

The success that we have in different industries in Northern Ireland is remarkable.

While I was listening to the contributions, I was reflecting on the fact that the Northern Ireland office in Brussels was meant to come and present to the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee, I think, last week. That evidence session had not been signed off, so we did not get it; it was delayed. We have that luxury here. Things are delayed and we put things off because of the politics of it all, but people in the real world do not have that luxury. My colleague Stewart Dickson described the office as a European External Action Service, and the point about likening it to the consular services is such an important one. We have other offices in Northern Ireland that represent other countries, and that makes life simpler. It makes things easier for trade and for getting information. The fact that we had to wait weeks for our own office in Brussels to come to our Committee to speak to us shows what this place is like and why we need to make it more accessible, open up more doors and make things easier for businesses, because they do not have that luxury. Making it simpler by having an office that would allow businesses to navigate increased complexity and uncertainty —.

Dr Aiken: I thank the Member for giving way. I do not know whether she was with us when the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee went to Brussels and tried to get a conversation going with the European Commission. It was reluctant to talk to us. Why does she think that opening an EU office would make things any better here?

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

Ms Nicholl: Thank you.

Yes, I was there, and I am slightly offended that you do not remember my presence on that trip. We walked to a restaurant together. I remember the trip, and there was one thing that I noticed: at the airport, we met a member of the business community who was on the same flight and was meeting senior elected members of the Commission, I think, whereas, as Committee members, we had meetings with mid-level policy officers. While that was useful, it struck me that we do things so far downstream. If we had an office and observer status — Mr Brooks, you look shocked. You are welcome to intervene, if you would like to.

Mr Brooks: I am wondering who the Member thinks that we would engage with, if we had an office in Belfast. It would be mid-level officials, not commissioners.

Ms Nicholl: I am not slighting mid-level officials; I am saying that our access, since we left the EU, has been limited, so we need to take every opportunity that we can. We do not have the influence that we had previously. We meet policy officers. If we had more offices and more engagement, businesses and people here would have access to more information, and we would be able to know what is coming further upstream. We may disagree on Brexit and its outcomes, but we agree that we want the best for people. If we knew further upstream what was coming legislatively, and if we had more engagement, surely that would be better for everyone.

We sometimes put politics before pragmatic solutions, and that does us a disservice. If only we could just park the fact that Brexit happened :you wanted it, I did not, and that is the way that it is. Let us now look at how we can have meaningful discussions about practical solutions, as opposed to always making sure that someone does not think — heaven forbid — that I like the EU a wee bit more than I actually do. Let us park that and get on with finding practical solutions. Having an office in Belfast can only be a good thing. It is not negative. It is not a Trojan horse. It is just a way of making life easier for people. We therefore support the motion. We support any sensible, pragmatic solutions. Please, for the rest of 2026, can we start having conversations that deal with Brexit and the EU in that spirit?

Dr Aiken: I oppose the motion. There will be no surprise there. The motion not only flies in the face of the reality of the situation that affects our economy, our farmers and our consumers but seeks to reinforce the falsehood that the Windsor framework in some way affords us any advantages. I declare an interest: I sit on the Democratic Scrutiny Committee. After two years of being sentenced to sit on the most incurious Committee in the Assembly, I can categorically state, on the basis of the evidence that we see and the thousands of pages of EU regulations, directives, proposals, alignments, explanatory memorandums and all the rest, that the only thing that the Windsor framework facilitates is millions of pounds of additional bureaucratic burden. The costs are already close to £1 billion for Northern Ireland alone. The Windsor framework brings more, not less, regulation; more cost, not less: nothing that would be facilitated or ameliorated by having an EU office in Belfast, EU observer status or any other moves until a full, UK-EU reset is completed.

The more observant among you will have noticed that the motion talks about "dual market access". That ignores — probably conveniently for the anti-Trump Sinn Féin — the fact that, with Northern Ireland being an integral part of the United Kingdom, we have advantageous tariff arrangements with the United States. Those tariff arrangements are more amenable for what is one of our largest markets, particularly for pharma, aerospace, defence and agribusiness. Arrangements —.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the Member's giving way. I suspect that I will get a slightly different answer to this from him than I would from some of the other Members opposite. Does he agree that, although we all may have reservations about what the UK Government are doing, their stated aspiration to move closer to the single market — I would like to see a customs union, too — would be good for Northern Ireland?

Dr Aiken: Of course I do. I do not think that that is any surprise to anybody —.

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

Dr Aiken: I get an extra minute, do I, Deputy Speaker? Thank you.

It will be no surprise to people here that I voted to remain in the European Union. Brexit was an absolute disaster. It is what it is, however, and that is where we are. There is an opportunity, however, particularly with the US tariff deal. There are also opportunities with India and other markets. Given the present state of the world, those are areas with which we would not have had appropriate tariff deals had we not been outside the European Union.

Going back to the US tariff deals, many of us will be aware that our friends in the Oireachtas see them as making the Republic of Ireland uncompetitive. It is nearly as if Sinn Féin, the SDLP and Alliance do not wish to acknowledge the real advantage: it comes with a lot less administrative and regulatory baggage than the Windsor framework. They also ignore our largest market: the rest of our nation. That market has been chilled by the Windsor framework. It cannot and will not ever be compared, in value and volume, with the short-term North/South trade distortions, many of which are due to the rerouting of logistics traffic and how it is managed.

It is significant —.

Mr Honeyford: Will the Member give way?

Dr Aiken: No, I have given way once.

It is significant that business organisations such as the FSB and the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry have recognised the reality of the situation. They are no longer saying that the Windsor framework is working whilst complaining privately to the Government and HMRC about the damage that it is doing to their businesses. They are now openly making their concerns heard. My noble friend Lord Murphy picked up on those concerns in his recent report on the workings of the framework.

Mr Delargy: Will the Member give way?

Dr Aiken: No, I will not. I have given way once.

Lord Murphy's recommendations have been accepted in full by Whitehall. Unsurprisingly, they do not include an impractical EU office in Belfast. Instead, the report recognises the very real difficulties that companies across the United Kingdom have in trading across our part of the Irish Sea. Lord Murphy proposed a multimillion pound clearing house facility to reduce the challenges presented by the Irish Sea border. That recommendation, and the push to do something practical about it, is what we should be debating.

The motion tries to push dual market access while ignoring the benefits of the reduced tariffs that we achieve by being part of the United Kingdom; pushes for a nugatory EU quango office in Belfast, thereby failing to recognise the damages that trade divergence has created; and ignores the need for a more positive approach to reduce red tape in our internal market. Those are ample reasons for not supporting the motion.

Mr Gaston: At its core, this latest Europhile motion asks the Assembly to do two things. First, it asks MLAs to endorse the protocol. Secondly, it asks MLAs to institutionalise and normalise EU governance in Northern Ireland by calling for an EU office in Belfast. Let us be clear on what that means. The phrase "dual market access" is repeatedly deployed by enthusiasts for EU rule without consent. Slogans are not substitutes for scrutiny, however. The UK's internal market is Northern Ireland's primary market. The protocol removes Northern Ireland from the practical operation of that internal market for goods and places us, for trading purposes, in the EU's regulatory and customs orbit. That creates the border in the Irish Sea. Dual market access is a nationalist myth. I remind the House that, when Invest NI was asked to cite a single example of inward investment directly attributable to the protocol, it could not name one.

Ms Nicholl: Will the Member give way?

Mr Honeyford: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: Goods coming from Great Britain into Northern Ireland are treated as suspect and are burdened with checks, paperwork and regulatory divergence. That is not an advantage; it is a penalty.

I am happy to give way to my friend in front of me here, who, just for the record, said that Northern Ireland's car industry was facing the "worst of every world" under the Windsor framework. I am interested to hear what he has to say.

Mr Honeyford: He wants me to speak. That is absolutely true, but the reality is that our GB trade has grown from £12 billion to £17 billion. Trade in Northern Ireland is up by 2·8%. Our economy is growing because we have access to Europe and because we are different from the rest of the UK. Our rate of growth is double. Where do you think that is coming from, and why would you not want our businesses to get the support that allows them to move on?

Mr Gaston: Well, there we have it: the man who said that Northern Ireland's car industry was facing the "worst of every world" under the Windsor framework is trying to reverse out and quote figures to dispel the nationalist myth that he likes to peddle.

Let me ground this debate in real, everyday examples. Just last week, I was contacted by a constituent who attempted to order a cot for their newborn baby from a mainland supplier. The response from the company was blunt: shipping not available to the selected address. That was not because the address was wrong or because the product was unavailable but because Northern Ireland is treated as a different regulatory and customs zone. Also last week, during the snowy weather, I was contacted by a Ballymena business that was trying to buy in more sledges to allow weans to have fun in the snow. The supplier replied that it no longer supplies Northern Ireland and cited red tape arising from the protocol. That is what dual market access means in the real world, and the reach of that regime does not stop there. My party has highlighted how EU-derived regulation is now tightening its grip even on tray bakes, dragging small producers into the regulatory framework that was designed elsewhere by legislators whom they did not elect. From baby cots to children's sledges to tray bakes made and sold locally, the pattern remains the same.

That brings us to the heart of the motion. Northern Ireland is subject to large swathes of EU law that we do not make and cannot change and that are overseen by a foreign court. That is a fundamental assault on democracy. The call for an EU office in Belfast is about entrenching the protocol. The motion does not seek to reduce Northern Ireland's separation from the UK internal market; it seeks to embed it. It does not seek to restore sovereignty or consent; it seeks to normalise rule taking. The proper response to the challenges facing business is not a bigger EU footprint here in Belfast; it is the removal of the barriers within the United Kingdom. That is what we need. We need the restoration of democratic control.

While I welcome the fact that all unionists in the House will join me in the Lobby, I remind them that the continued existence of the protocol means that they should not be in the Executive. At the last Assembly election, all unionist parties stood on a platform in unalterable opposition to the protocol, yet, today, we find the DUP and the Ulster Unionists in the Executive, where, by law, they must implement the protocol. Indeed, I notice that the text of that declaration from the DUP campaign has quietly disappeared from the party's website. Thankfully, promises are not so easily removed from the minds —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up.

Mr Gaston: — of the electorate, as they were from —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up. Thank you.

Mr Gaston: — the DUP website.

Mr Honeyford: I was invited to speak. I was not meant to, but I will not sit here and listen to multiple things being said about Invest NI and everything else that are not based on facts. We are gaslighting people because —.

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Mr Honeyford: The commentator behind me —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Can we have one contributor at a time, please, Mr Gaston? Otherwise, nobody will hear anything, Mr Gaston.

Mr Honeyford: I did not want Brexit or vote for it, but, if you light a fire, there will be some smoke. This is the bit that might be uncomfortable for some: you created the smoke that we see. It is there because you created it. You wanted it, supported it and screamed for it, but we have a benefit now. Our economy —.

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Mr Honeyford: Yes. I will give way to the Member.

Mr Gaston: Does the Member recognise that Northern Ireland did not get Brexit and that that is the problem that we face today? Many businesses face large problems because of the rigorous implementers and because the Alliance Party —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Gaston, resume your seat. Before you stand up, Mr Honeyford —.

Mr Gaston: — joined the rest of nationalism and made sure we did not get Brexit.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Resume your seat, Mr Gaston. This is not a debate about Brexit or whether it was applied. It is a debate about an EU office in Belfast, and the remainder of the speeches must focus on the theme of the motion and must not go much wider. Please return to the theme of the EU office in Belfast.

Mr Honeyford: Having an EU office in Belfast is about the practicalities for our businesses. They are screaming for information to enable them to move forward. Everybody who comes to the Economy Committee from business groups has asked for information. The fact is that, for the first time ever, our economy is growing at more than twice the rate of the UK's. Our economy is at 2·8%, and the UK is at 1·3% and going down. That difference has nothing to do with constitutional politics; it has to do with access to the EU market. We live on an island, and we share an island. We either collaborate and grow our economy, or we will go nowhere. We will go backwards.

Ms Nicholl: Will the Member give way?

Mr Honeyford: Happily.

Ms Nicholl: Does the Member agree that, while the Invest NI representatives who came to the Economy Committee said that they could not list anything because the evidence was not there, anecdotally they suspected that some businesses could not say that they supported dual market access or that they were benefiting from it, because the matter is so politically charged?

Mr Honeyford: I absolutely agree. I will go back to this point, because it has been made multiple times and it is false. Way back when the Assembly had just returned, Invest NI said that it did not have an example at that time. Invest NI has now said that it has multiple examples of businesses that are already here and that are expanding. I can name four or five businesses in my constituency that employ people and that are growing. That is the fact of what is happening on the ground. I was at Leprino — it is currently in Upper Bann, but it will become part of Lagan Valley at the next election — and it has moved its base to Magheralin, because the cheese is now distributed and exported to GB and the South of Ireland because we have access. Leprino, which was Glanbia before it was bought over, has grown. Coca-Cola is on its second extension in Lisburn, and Monster has come to Lagan Valley because we have access to both GB and the South. It is gaslighting people to tell them that Invest NI said there are no such examples: it did not.

As my colleague mentioned, Invest NI representatives, in answering a direct question by me, said that businesses are afraid to say that growth is because of dual market access, because it has been politicised by the TUV, DUP and the Ulster Unionists. That is the reason. That is what Invest NI said. When the chief executive was asked if it was the same for the South, his clear answer was that it was not. The issue has been politicised instead of our focusing on supporting our businesses and allowing our economy to grow to create jobs, employment and opportunities for the young people and all of us. We live on an island. We either share that —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Will the EU office in Belfast feature here as well?

Mr Honeyford: The EU office in Belfast is part of enabling the business community to get the access that they need in order to export more. I support the motion.

Mr Carroll: All my comments will be about the EU office in Belfast and everything that it could be doing. Part of the motion seems straightforward and not worth objecting to. Access to both markets has benefited suppliers and businesses in the North, which is an OK thing to note, observe and, for me, support. I have no issue with that, but I have to say that many unionist parties have over-egged some of the issues since the protocol. There was an obsession with getting and ensuring access to certain foods and goods from Britain when similar products could be acquired south of the border. That was bizarre and perplexing, and, in some cases, too much focus was placed on the flag on the packets of meat rather than on their content and on whether they were healthy and safely produced. Tray bakes and cots are new ones on me, however.

Mr Gaston: And sledges.

Mr Carroll: Sledges. OK. Important stuff indeed.

Investment is mentioned in the motion. Investment in public services, in infrastructure and in communities generally is essential, but it is important to emphasise and tease out what kind of investment is being proposed, in particular what kind of investment an EU office in Belfast would advocate, because that was not directly spelt out in the motion or in the first speech. Ethical investment is key and essential. It is worth mentioning that the EU often does not engage in ethical investment, and that is putting it mildly. It had a special trade deal in place with Israel, and, on the proposal for an EU office in Belfast, it is worth asking whether it will be used to expand and deepen that deal, which was only partially suspended. It was not thrown out and still exists. That is not to mention that the European Union has been a pillar of support for Israel and that it green-lit its genocide in Gaza. EU member states also failed to adopt any measures following the International Court of Justice (ICJ) orders in the case brought by South Africa for alleged violations of the genocide convention in January 2024, which —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Carroll, will you address the motion?

Mr Carroll: Sure, I will do.

We are told that the organisation is about human rights and freedom, which is something that many people in the Palestine solidarity movement and beyond would question. That is not to mention the fact that the EU has funnelled weapons to Israel and elsewhere. I am opposed to an extension or expansion of that form of investment or trade, regardless of whether it creates jobs in Belfast, Derry, Ballymena, Lagan Valley or elsewhere. People need well-paid and secure jobs, but those jobs have to be ethical. They also have to be safe in those jobs, as do poor and oppressed people in Africa, the Middle East and elsewhere.

It would be foolish of me not to mention in closing the role that EU leaders have played in beating the drums of war. I know that that is something that the Member to my right is keen to support. Demanding more military spending by member states —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Carroll, will you please address the matter of having an EU office in Belfast?

Mr Carroll: Absolutely.

It is ironic that this place is often presented as a place of peace and as something that came about out of negotiation and a peace settlement, but, in the debate so far, we have not heard one word about the stated drive of EU leaders. They invest in arms and support greater investment in arms manufacturing across Europe. Regardless of the tuts to my right, that is true, and it is among their stated aims. We also have the question —. [Inaudible.]

Mr Carroll: The Member to my right shouted something. I do not know what was said, but I am happy to give way to him if he wants.

Mr Brooks: I just wonder whether he is aware that we are talking about the opening of a European External Action Service office in Belfast rather than a military camp.

Mr Carroll: I do not think that the Member has read the motion. It talks about having an EU office in Belfast. Maybe he should read the motion.

To go back to my point, we have not had a discussion about data centres. They are key to investment and to technology in general, but it is proven that they suck up resources, leading to rocketing emissions, which raises all sorts of difficult questions about —.

Mr O'Toole: I thank the Member for giving way. I appreciate that he does not like certain types of investment — I agree with him on the Israel point — but I know that his party supported Brexit. Will he acknowledge that communities such as west Belfast have lost a fortune in EU investment? It is important for him to acknowledge that. He and his party supported Brexit. West Belfast and north Belfast have lost serious money from European social funding. Brexit was a disaster for communities in Belfast and Derry. Will he agree with that?

Mr Carroll: I remind the Member —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Before we continue, I remind Members that shouting at one another across the Chamber, whether formally or by way of intervention, not addressing the Chair and not addressing the motion combine to make a not very good look.

Mr Carroll: I remind the Member that he was working in Westminster at the time of Brexit. His fingers are all over it, if anyone's are. You have a cheek and a nerve to accuse other people of stuff that you, more than anybody else, were complicit in. You had nothing to say about the role played by EU leaders in cheering on the genocide in Gaza because your illusions about them are so deep. It is up to the Member to live with that.

Let us add the pertinent and serious questions around super-intelligent AI into the mix of the debate. The North should not be a back door for that type of technology, which could be very dangerous. It is not just me saying that from the sidelines but people who have worked in that industry. Like I said, all of that is connected to the motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): There is no ministerial response to the debate. I ask Declan Kearney to make his winding-up speech on the motion. Mr Kearney, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr Kearney: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

It is an established matter of fact that Brexit has been an economic, social and political disaster for citizens and businesses here and even in Britain. Yes, Britain got Brexit, and now its economy is tanking. It is also a fact, however, that the North was pulled out of the European Union against the wishes of the majority of voters in this region. That is also the position that is held by the greater majority of Members of the Assembly.

Every party in the Assembly acknowledges that Brexit has also created a democratic deficit. I have said previously that the difference, of course, is in how we define and address the nature of that deficit. It is, frankly, bizarre that the DUP and other Brexit cheerleaders, who were cautioned at the time about the predictable damage that its onset would cause for businesses, workers and families, continue now to resist any practical solution that would mitigate the harm that Brexit has done. All of that has been reflected in the debate this evening. The only thing that is worse than missing the point is to deliberately miss the point. This is not about symbolism; it is about being pragmatic and solution-focused.

Other contributors have correctly reminded us this evening that we once had a European Commission office in Belfast. Having another office is about access. It is about bringing added value to how we collectively address the development of mitigations to deal with the frictions that have flowed as a consequence of Brexit.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kearney: Yes, go ahead.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member acknowledge that, when his colleague spoke in the debate, she referenced that this was as much about Irish citizens who felt disenfranchised from Europe, having been part of an area that had left Europe, feeling that connection again? In itself, that says that this is about symbolism and the constitutional arrangement rather than simply pragmatism around trade arrangements.

Mr Kearney: Had the Member allowed me to continue, perhaps he would have been enlightened by what I am about to say. Perhaps he will reflect on what I am about to say. One side of the House wants to reduce the issue — you are one of the people who does it — to zero-sum constitutional issues. You play the alarmist game, and you and others engage directly in fake news. Since its imposition, conversely, Sinn Féin, other parties here, the Irish Government and the EU have collectively sought to mitigate the worst effects of Brexit. Now, the mechanisms exist to do that through the protocol and the Windsor framework.

While the regional economy continues to grow because of — yes, hear this — dual market access, our businesses have identified challenges brought about by Brexit. That is an inevitable consequence of the harm that was caused. While the Windsor framework has protected us from the worst harms of Brexit, our businesses are now asking us to do more to help them to navigate the new trading realities that they have to face.

Therefore, our collective focus should be on identifying pragmatic and practical solutions to address the challenges that are associated with this post-Brexit context, and that extends to technical issues that our businesses have identified as they navigate the new trade, investment and regulatory arrangements that have been imposed on all of us. The recent Murphy review concluded that having a one-stop shop to simplify administrative processes would be an advantage. I agree. That recommendation should be implemented, and establishing a European Union office in Belfast as a further resource for our businesses and communities is the next logical step to take.

Brexit was an act of self-inflicted economic and social harm. To the DUP and others, you got it wrong, and today it is equally wrong to conflate pragmatic solutions being proposed in a motion such as this with matters of sovereignty and fake news and Project Fear. Ten years on, let us accept the reality that we face and finally start working together to support local businesses. That is why it makes sense to support the motion and collectively endorse the call for the British Government and the European Union in a collegiate way to establish a European Commission office here in this region.