Official Report: Tuesday 27 January 2026

Mr Speaker: Before the start of business this morning, I want to deal with an issue. Members know that, on many occasions, both in the House and in correspondence to Ministers, I have emphasised the conventions and rulings of the Assembly that make it clear that significant announcements should be made to the Assembly first.

This morning, there is wide-scale reporting in the media of the Infrastructure Minister's intention to introduce what she described as the:

It seems a substantial discourtesy to the Assembly and a significant breach of the normal conventions and expectations that there has been no request from the Minister to make a statement. Therefore, as I have previously made clear that I will do in such circumstances, I have selected a question for urgent oral answer to ensure that Members will have the opportunity to question the Minister.

Although, on this occasion, the issues relate to the Infrastructure Minister, such issues are not isolated to one Department. I received correspondence from the Committee for Communities that expressed concern about the sharing of information with the Committee by that Department, and I ensured that the Assembly had a specific opportunity yesterday to question that Minister on the report from the Commissioner for Standards.

I remind Ministers that the role of the Assembly is to scrutinise the work of Ministers and to hold them to account, and I will uphold that on behalf of the Assembly. Ministers should proactively facilitate that scrutiny.

Mrs Mason: School-leaders already wear many hats. They are educators, sometimes counsellors, carers and often managers. It now seems that they are expected to be weathermen and women, too.

We have seen amber and yellow weather warnings right across the North, particularly impacting on the east.

First, fair play to the school-leaders who had to make swift, difficult decisions this morning and yesterday to close their schools to protect pupils and staff. Those decisions were not easy, and they should not have had to make them alone. Equally, we have to recognise that not every school can make that call as easily. Different locations, transport issues, staffing pressures and access routes all matter. That is exactly the point.

The inconsistency and confusion could have been avoided if the Education Authority (EA) had stepped up and shown leadership. Instead, responsibility was pushed aside, and principals were told to assess conditions locally, with no clear direction, limited information and no coordinated approach. That left parents constantly refreshing their phones, unsure about childcare, work or whether it was safe to send their children to school at all. It especially impacted on families who have children in more than one school.

That responsibility should never have landed on the shoulders of school-leaders. It belongs to the Education Minister and the Education Authority. It was a complete abdication of responsibility. With proper planning, coordination with the Met Office and clear, timely decisions, that stress and uncertainty did not need to happen. Once again, when leadership was required from the Education Minister and the EA, it did not come. The safety of pupils and staff must always come first.

Mr Dunne: I rise today to highlight a real crisis on our roads network right across Northern Ireland. Our roads are in a shocking and dangerous condition in rural and urban areas in every corner of the country. Our roads are lined with thousands of wheel-wrecking potholes that are damaging tyres and suspension and only adding costly repair bills to hard-pressed families during these difficult times.

It appears that the Infrastructure Minister has lost control of her Department and has really failed to get on top of the issue. It is a clear dereliction of duty, given the significance of road safety and basic road maintenance across our roads network. Taxpayers rightly expect safe roads. Rather than focusing on divisive vanity projects, the Minister needs to get back to basics and fix our roads.

For too long, our roads have deteriorated. We saw it happen under the previous Minister, John O'Dowd, and it has got even worse under Minister Kimmins, who has now been in post for one year. The same Department that demands that our cars and vehicles are kept safe and in roadworthy condition totally fails when it comes to the condition of our roads.

This is a roads crisis, and people want urgent action, a clear plan and decisive action to fix it. People rightly do not want compensation forms; they want safe roads. Compensation forms are purely an admission of failure from the Department and the Minister. There also needs to be a much greater balance between often generously funded active travel schemes and basic road maintenance, which has been totally neglected over the past number of years.

Importantly, it also undermines the road safety messaging coming from the Department when our roads are in such poor condition. It compromises that important message. Motorists and all road users are impacted on and put at great risk from using the road, whether they are pedestrians, passengers, drivers and all vehicle users.

In my constituency, the A2 dual carriageway from Bangor to Belfast carries over 40,000 vehicles daily. A hard-working gentleman hit a pothole on Friday morning when driving to work, and it resulted in a damage repair bill of £450. That is just one constituent, but it is an example of how the Department for Infrastructure and the Infrastructure Minister are failing our communities, taxpayers and residents right across Northern Ireland. It is time for the Minister to stop deflecting, stop the excuses and fix our roads.

Mr McMurray: I rise to speak on Holocaust Memorial Day. I think back to a city break that I took to Berlin in 2018 with my wife. I cannot remember whether a visit was something that we had planned to do or whether we just came across it as we were wandering through Berlin, but we found ourselves at the memorial to the murdered Jews of Europe beside Pariser Platz. For those who have not been, I say that it is a collection of 2,711 columns.

Every column is of the same dimensions — approximately 3 feet by 7 feet — but they range in height, starting quite low at only 8 or 9 inches off the ground. When you start to wander amongst them and look across them, while they are still quite low, the columns do not seem to be of different heights going towards the centre. There is a slight slope to the ground, however, which drops the visitor towards the centre. As you start to walk in, the columns start to get taller, and, before you know it, they are 10 to 15 feet high, towering over you. Light struggles to get in at that point, and, while the columns are of a fairly uniform grid pattern, such an oppressive feeling is created; it is like a maze to get out of. I have often reflected on that darkness; the feeling of oppression; and being unable to see a way out, whether that be up, down, left or right. I also think of the gentle slope that took me to that point and the gentle, unthinking walk that led me to the centre. Before I knew it, I was in the middle of it.

I attended an event last week, hosted by Open Doors. It was very moving. I am lucky that I can attend my place of worship freely every week. I am lucky that my faith does not come with repressions such as those that others have faced. Freedom from and freedom of religion are important pillars of our liberal democracy. In the fractious world that we live in, we see systems being challenged. Let us not forget the mistakes and horrors of our past. We see an increase in Islamophobia and antisemitic behaviours across our society. Today, on Holocaust Memorial Day, I remember those who were persecuted by virtue of their faith, cultural background, disability or sexuality. I reaffirm my desire to make physical the metaphorical structures that I may never use for those who need shelter in our society. Let us never find ourselves in the middle of those columns.

Ms D Armstrong: I place on record my serious concerns regarding the decision by Fermanagh and Omagh District Council to establish what it calls an Irish unity working group. Let me begin by acknowledging the basic facts: yes, the decision was taken in accordance with the council's standing orders and, yes, the stated purpose of the group is:

The real issue is not with how the group was created but what it is doing and how far it has drifted from any neutral or exploratory role. In a council report to its policy and resources committee, dated 20 January 2026, reference is made to the council proceeding:

The same report refers to organising:

Finally, it refers to arrangements that are being made:

Those are not neutral terms, nor are they balanced formulations. They do not describe an impartial assessment of competing constitutional futures; they describe active preparation for a specific outcome. There is no evidence that council officers have, at any point, cautioned the working group about the shift in language or direction, or that they have taken steps to ensure that the council remains within the bounds of political impartiality. If such evidence exists, I would, of course, be willing to consider it, but none has been presented to date.

Local government has a clear responsibility to serve all ratepayers, regardless of constitutional aspiration. It must also avoid the reality and the perception of political advocacy on matters of this kind. References to preparing, planning or otherwise advancing a particular constitutional outcome raise serious questions about whether the council is still meeting its duty of neutrality.

As an MLA and a ratepayer in the district, and having listened to constituents, I am absolutely entitled to challenge what I regard as a clear example of local government overreach. The promotion or facilitation of a constitutional agenda, funded by ratepayers, falls well outside what many people would reasonably consider to be the remit of a district council. Councils exist to deliver services, manage local infrastructure and improve the everyday lives of the communities that they serve, not to involve themselves in constitutional engineering.

This is not about shutting down debate but maintaining clear institutional boundaries and good governance. It is also about protecting the principle that public money should not be used to promote one side of a deeply contested constitutional question. That is the basis of my concern, and that is why I believe that the matter deserves serious scrutiny.

Mr McGrath: This Thursday, 29 January, is Stroke Prevention Day. It is important to raise that matter here today, because there are more than 42,000 stroke survivors living across Northern Ireland.

In my constituency of South Down, over 2,000 people are rebuilding their lives after a stroke; more than 2,500 people live with atrial fibrillation; and over 16,000 constituents have high blood pressure. That could be 16,001 after some of the debates that we have in here of a day. High blood pressure is one of the leading causes of stroke and is responsible for around half of cases.

Figures for the whole of the UK show that, every five minutes, someone will experience a stroke. The Stroke Association is concerned because, without urgent intervention and attention, it looks like that figure will move quickly to one stroke every three and a half minutes by 2035. That means that we will see a substantial increase in the number of people who are affected.

We know that stroke can destroy a life in an instant. Across the North, at least two people every hour are at risk of losing the ability to see, speak, move or even swallow as an impact of a stroke. It remains the fourth leading cause of death across the UK. The question that is always asked is whether it has to be like that. The Stroke Association is urging the public to protect themselves by regularly monitoring blood pressure and taking steps to maintain a healthy level and a healthy life. Of course, prevention is always much better than cure. That means eating well, avoiding smoking and vaping, staying active and limiting alcohol consumption.

One practical action that the Assembly could take is the introduction of minimum unit pricing for alcohol. For Members interested in the evidence base for that, the all-party group on stroke will hear from Professor Colin Angus of the University of Sheffield this Thursday. He is one of the UK's leading experts on modelling the effectiveness of minimum unit pricing in Scotland, where it has been in place since 2018.

We must also be clear about the wider implications. The societal cost of stroke is expected to rise sharply as incidences increase. That reflects not only the need for intensive rehabilitation and long-term support but the economic impact on survivors who are unable to work and the families who care for them. As we approach Stroke Prevention Day on Thursday, let us commit to taking the necessary action to reduce the devastating impacts of a stroke.

Mr McHugh: Déanfar Lá Cuimhneacháin an Uileloiscthe a chomóradh an tseachtain seo. Tugann sé deis dúinn ár machnamh a dhéanamh ar na hainghníomhartha ab uafásaí a rinneadh ar an chine dhaonna. Tá sé tábhachtach go ndéanaimid ár machnamh ar an tréimhse uafásach úd ionas go dtuigfidh muid an crá, an phian agus an fuath a bhí ann nuair a céasadh agus a dúnmharaíodh an oiread sin daoine.

Tá cúpla bliain ó shin, thug mé cuairt ar Auschwitz, an sluachampa géibhinn ba mhó de chuid na Naitsithe, inar maraíodh thart ar 1·1 milliún duine. Chuaigh na déantáin phearsanta agus na taispeántais inar léiríodh an taithí scanrúil sin, chuaigh sin go mór i bhfeidhm orm. Bhí sé thar a bheith coscrach. Ba chóir Lá Cuimhneacháin an Uileloiscthe bheith ina rabhadh dúinn uile faoi na rudaí a d'fhéadfadh tarlú mura dtugtar dúshlán an fhuatha, an dídhaonaithe agus na fuarchúise.

Is gairm chun gnímh é Lá Cuimhneacháin an Uileloiscthe do chách atá tiomanta chun cearta an duine agus chun an daonlathais. Éilítear orainn seasamh le chéile i gcoinne frith-Sheimíteachas, seineafóibe, ciníochas agus leithcheal de gach sórt. Tá dualgas morálta orainn an comhionannas, an ceartas agus an tsíocháin a chosaint agus seasamh go daingean in aghaidh an chinedhíothaithe atá ar obair san am i láthair.

Ms Forsythe: Today, we have seen the publication of the Northern Ireland Audit Office report 'Leading and Resourcing the Northern Ireland Civil Service', and it is damning. We speak a lot here about the pressures that public services and finances are under, and I consistently highlight the need to deliver efficiencies and manage services better through transformation. Many hard-working individuals contribute substantially to the Northern Ireland Civil Service daily, but, with more than 24,500 staff, they and the structures need to be managed and coordinated better. With millions of pounds invested in shared services, the management of Northern Ireland Civil Service staffing and HR lies with the Minister of Finance, John O'Dowd, and today's Audit Office report sets out clearly his failings to take action and get a grip on the situation. Where is the ambition from the Minister to wage war on the waste in government?

When publishing his multi-year Budget plans, the Minister said that he was in listening mode. I hope that he is listening to the Comptroller and Auditor General and the report, which clearly identifies areas in which he has failed to act. The report follows up the 2020 Audit Office report 'Capacity and Capability in the Northern Ireland Civil Service' and a subsequent report by the Public Accounts Committee. Five years have passed, and only five of the 23 recommendations made by the Audit Office in 2020 have been achieved, while just five of the 12 PAC recommendations have been delivered. The same issues are still being reported; in many cases, they are worse.

We see a greater reliance on temporary staffing solutions in the Civil Service, with nearly 5,000 agency workers employed in 2025, more than double the number recorded in 2019. What has John O'Dowd done to tackle the soaring cost of agency staff? It sits now at over half a billion pounds. What has the Finance Minister done to tackle sick leave in the Civil Service? It cost £48·8 million in 2024-25 and has been steadily increasing, with an average of 13·4 staff days lost in 2024-25 compared with 12·6 in 2018-19. The Civil Service declared nearly 5,500 vacant posts on 31 March 2025. In addition, over 3,000 staff were temporarily promoted, which represents 13% of the workforce.

The report has found a lack of progress in key strategic areas. It notes concerns about the reliability of data and highlights a failure to see action on previous recommendations. Surely, with proper workforce planning, those costs can be driven down. John O'Dowd needs to take action to deliver efficiency. The question is this: is he really in listening mode?

Mrs Guy: I cannot believe that, in 2026, we are still debating the right of girls to wear trousers in school. It is not a radical proposal. Walk down any high street and you will see young women and girls wearing trousers in everyday life. Allowing the same right in school simply reflects the real world and the real practicalities that girls face.

This is not about politics or ideology but about comfort, dignity and equality. Why should girls be less comfortable or, during cold winter months, less warm simply because of outdated uniform rules? What makes it especially frustrating is that the Education Minister already has the power to act. Rightly, he is moving to amend statutory guidance to ensure that children can wear their own coat to school. The same mechanism could now be used to make it clear that school uniform policies must allow girls the option to wear trousers. There is no legal barrier, cost implication or educational downside.

In the absence of that simple action from the Minister, the Committee for Education is introducing a Bill to bring about the change. We all know that primary legislation should not be necessary to correct something that could be resolved through simple, sensible guidance from the Department. It may not be the biggest issue facing the Assembly, but it may be the easiest. Unlike so many other challenges, it has something rare: political consensus. I am aware of no party that is intent on blocking the change.

If we want people to believe that we can tackle the big issues, we must prove that we can deliver on the small ones. When time is short and resources are tight, it is time for pragmatism. It is time to show people, especially our young people, that we can act to deliver change for them. I appeal sincerely to the Minister to make the change. Act now to save Assembly time, Committee resources and public money. We have the Youth Assembly before the Education Committee this week to provide evidence on the issue.

Minister, I hope that you will listen to them. If I and other Members cannot persuade you to act, I hope that they can.

Mrs Cameron: Today marks Holocaust Memorial Day. This year's theme is "Building Generations". This evening, people across the United Kingdom will take part in the "Light the Darkness" national moment at 8.00 pm. We will gather not only to honour the six million Jewish men, women and children who were systematically murdered alongside the millions of other innocent victims of Nazi persecution but to confront the truth about the hatred that enabled the Holocaust. That hatred did not end in 1945. The Holocaust did not happen overnight. It was a result of years of tolerated prejudice, escalating discrimination and widespread indifference. Step by step, words became actions and actions became atrocities. History shows us, with devastating clarity, where unchecked hatred leads.

That warning is deeply relevant today. Across Europe and here in the United Kingdom, antisemitism is rising at an alarming rate. Jewish communities face harassment, vandalism, intimidation and violence. Families are made to feel unsafe simply because of who they are. Let us be absolutely clear: antisemitism has no place in our society. It has no place on our streets, online, in our institutions or in our political discourse.

One of the most powerful lessons of the Holocaust is about the cost of indifference. Silence in the face of rising antisemitism is not neutrality: it is failure. We must also recognise the power of words. The Nazi regime used propaganda to dehumanise Jewish people and normalise hatred. That same pattern is visible today, where conspiracy theories and online hate are allowed to spread unchecked. When language denies people their humanity, violence is never far behind.

Of course, education remains our strongest defence. Last Friday, I attended a Holocaust memorial event that was hosted by the Monkstown Community Association on behalf of Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council. It was deeply encouraging to see Hollybank Primary School's P7 pupils leading the way in learning about the Holocaust and expressing their knowledge through art. We also heard powerful testimony from Melvyn Goldberger, the son of a Holocaust survivor, reminding us why remembrance is essential.

Today, we honour the victims, not only with remembrance but with resolve; resolve to confront antisemitism wherever it appears, to defend our Jewish communities and to ensure that "never again" is a living commitment and not an empty phrase.

Mr McReynolds: In April 2024, I presented a petition to you, Mr Speaker, which had been signed by 4,500 people and called for the commissioning of ADHD services in Northern Ireland. I pleaded with the then Health Minister to meet ADD-NI to discuss the need for those services in Northern Ireland and the impact that they would have. Since then, I have also pleaded with the current Health Minister to meet us, and I am pleased to say that we got that meeting with the Health Department. At that meeting, we made clear the urgent need for departmental intervention for those who are living with the condition, and, crucially, those who are potentially living with it, in Northern Ireland.

A report was commissioned, and we were told that it would be finished by the end of the 2024-25 financial year. We were then told that it would be finished by the start of the summer, which then became the end of the summer and then Christmas. Now, we are told that it is finished and with Health officials, but it still has not been published for anyone other than the Department to review. I am chair of the all-party group on ADHD. We are being held back from doing all that we can in the Northern Ireland Assembly to support the ADHD community. The report is already 20 years too late, and we cannot meet to discuss its findings because we still have not even seen them.

I am pleased that the Health Minister is sitting in front of me as I make this statement. I urge him to do the right thing and take that important first step by publishing that report to get change and justice for children, young people and adults alike across Northern Ireland. For too long, people who live with the condition have struggled and lived in silence. The ADHD community is positive, driven and proactive. We will not stop fighting for the justice that it deserves in the face of the removal of shared care arrangements, lengthy waiting lists for diagnosis and the impact of the lack of support on stress levels, which can include self-medication, substance abuse and mental health issues.

Mr Buckley: One of the most important tasks of any Economy Minister around the world is to ensure that their country is a welcome place for investment and job creation, in order to ensure that their citizens have the best chance to thrive in any sector. However, Sinn Féin's foreign policy outlook is damaging the Northern Ireland economy. Who would have thought that aligning yourself with despot regimes, giving cover to global terror gangs and supporting hard-left communist posturing would be so unattractive to international investors?

Last week at the Economy Committee, it was revealed that major US financial services firm Cantor Fitzgerald withdrew an offer of 300 jobs for Northern Ireland last year. The Minister was in quite a tailspin when she was asked about the reasons for that withdrawal. There was plenty of bluster, but there were no hard answers. The Speaker talked earlier about Ministers not explaining their actions to the House. What about their not explaining their actions to a scrutiny Committee? By the end of the following day, the Minister's note of that meeting had been released to the BBC, but she has still not provided clarity on her actions to that scrutiny Committee. I have submitted further detailed scrutiny questions on the issue. I will submit FOI requests and whatever it takes to get to the bottom of why those international jobs — such jobs have gone to Dublin and London — did not come to Belfast.

We thought that Sinn Féin would have learned the lesson about what global posturing means for international investment, but it seems not. The Sinn Féin Economy Minister is not long home from a £15,000 taxpayer-funded trip to China, during which she met the Chinese People's Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries. That organisation sounds very benign, but the US Government have banned their government organisations from interacting with it because of espionage. However, our Economy Minister is happy to tow up alongside those communist dictators. That country — we do not hear anything about human rights abuses in this regard — harvests organs from its citizens, puts its minorities in forced labour camps, and persecutes Christians. The double standards and hypocrisy know no bounds. It is damaging to job investment. Be assured that Sinn Féin will be held accountable.

Mr Speaker: I call Gerry Carroll. You have a couple of minutes, Mr Carroll.

Mr Carroll: It is clear that the United States is a country that has been steeped in violence and suppression from the get-go. Parties in the House, especially the unionist parties, would do well to remember that fact as they clamber to celebrate everything red, white and blue this year. What we have witnessed since its creation, but especially in the past few months from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), is nothing short of fascistic violence from the biggest army and superpower in the world. In recent days, we have witnessed ICE agents violently arresting a five-year-old, Liam Ramos, and deporting him and his family to Texas, which is a state that they never wanted to go to. Just a few weeks ago, we had the execution of a mother, Renee Good, who was shot dead in cold blood for the world to see. Last Saturday, the world witnessed the killing of Alex Jeffrey Pretti, who was a nurse in a local hospital — a veterans' hospital, no less. It seems as though, in the US, there is a Rodney King-type moment every week, with the state's going further and executing people, and it is recorded. Once again, attending a protest can be a death sentence for too many people in the United States. Alex Pretti intervened when he saw an ICE agent pepper-spraying a woman in the face. Despite the lies projected by Trump and others, he was using a phone at that event, but still he was deemed worthy of execution by a trained armed operator. That action — that execution — was committed by somebody who was well trained and funded by the US Government.

There are now major questions for the Executive parties about the response that they will take to the US regime. Will they continue to go out of their way to have a cosy relationship with that corrupt and rogue regime? It was bad enough when the US invaded Venezuela and snatched its president for a show trial and when it made threats to Greenland. It is decision time for the Executive and the Taoiseach. Will they support that regime or shun it? The best chance to shun it is to refuse to go to the White House on 17 March.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): In compliance with section 52 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I wish to make the following statement on the twenty-seventh North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) health and food safety sectoral meeting, which was held in Armagh on Wednesday 14 January 2026. I chaired the meeting, and was joined by junior Minister Aisling Reilly MLA, who attended as the accompanying Minister. Jennifer Carroll MacNeill TD, Minister for Health, represented the Government of Ireland. The statement has been agreed with junior Minister Reilly, and I make it on behalf of both of us.

I will begin by addressing the issue of health. The Council welcomed the cooperation of officials from the Northern Ireland Department of Health, the Department of Children, Disability and Equality in Ireland and the other relevant Departments in the area of disability. Ministers noted the commitment of the Northern Ireland Department of Health and the Department of Children, Disability and Equality in Ireland to upholding the rights of people with disabilities in line with the principles set out by the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Ministers agreed that officials should explore potential options for collaboration and knowledge exchange and provide an update at a future meeting.

The Council welcomed the progress made to date on implementing its work programme in the health sector and noted that both Departments of Health have identified additional areas where there is potential for further development and collaboration between the health authorities in both jurisdictions. The Council agreed the proposed revisions to the work programme and noted that work to ensure that the work programme reflects the priorities of each Administration will continue. In receiving an update on ongoing cooperation between the two Health Departments, the Council noted that the all-island paediatric cardiology training scheme qualification has been added to the General Medical Council's list of recognised specialist qualifications, which will enhance workforce mobility and cross-border collaboration. The NSMC noted that the potential for future cooperation on perinatal and paediatric services continues to be explored.

The Council was advised of ongoing work between the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service and the National Ambulance Service and of the fact that work is progressing on harmonising clinical and operational procedures, updating the memorandum of understanding on mutual aid and improving control room interoperability.

The Council noted that 10 cross-border healthcare PEACE PLUS-funded projects have launched and are in their start-up phase. The consideration of an eleventh health project is under way.

The NSMC noted the ongoing work on Exercise Pegasus, which concerns UK pandemic preparedness and in which representatives from Ireland have participated as observers.

Cooperation on cancer care is a long-standing element of the health work programme. The Council received updates on recent developments in that area. The Council noted the ongoing work by the North/South cancer policy and strategy group, which most recently met in October 2025, on progressing the delivery of cross-border cancer services. Ministers noted the benefits, for patients, of the ongoing cooperation on and expansion of radiotherapy services at Altnagelvin Area Hospital and welcomed further cooperation on services provided through the North West Cancer Centre. The Council noted that the inaugural all-island paediatric oncology conference was held on 16 and 17 October 2025. Ministers welcomed the development of a project shortlist of areas of cooperation to be considered further, with the aim being to improve cancer services for patients across both jurisdictions.

The Council noted the prevalence of rare diseases on the island of Ireland, the benefits of cooperation on rare diseases and the commitment to promoting and strengthening that cooperation. The NSMC noted that the ongoing consideration of opportunities to collaborate on efforts to support those from across the island who live with rare diseases will continue, and Ministers welcomed the ongoing work in both jurisdictions to improve the lives of those who live with rare diseases, including the work of the all-Ireland rare diseases interdisciplinary research network.

The Council noted a presentation on obesity, which provided an overview of diet and nutrition, physical activity and health weight-related outcomes in Ireland and Northern Ireland, and the existing cooperation on initiatives to address obesity, including the all-island obesity action forum and the all-island healthier food environment forum.

I turn to food safety. The Council considered a progress report outlining Safefood's high-level achievements since the previous health and food safety sectoral meeting. Those included Safefood's roll-out of a further iteration of its food environment multimedia campaign, with the broader goal of encouraging societal change for a healthier food environment for children's future health and ultimately driving potential policy change; and Safefood's Clean As You Go campaign to remind people about the need to wash hands, work surfaces and utensils, especially when preparing raw meat, with the aim of reducing the risk of food poisoning from cross-contamination in people's homes.

Next, the Council noted the collaborative approach undertaken by Safefood to deliver its remit, including working with partners such as the Irish Football Association, the Gaelic Athletic Association, Northern Ireland local authorities and public-sector organisations; the launch of Safefood's new, free healthy eating resource, 'Fuel Your Game', in Croke Park; Safefood's support of the launch of newly revised nutritional standards applying to all facilities that serve food and beverages in Health and Social Care settings in Northern Ireland; and Safefood's continued work with the district and borough councils in Northern Ireland to provide free food safety training for small businesses in their respective areas.

Penultimately, the Council noted the ongoing roll-out of the 2025-28 community food initiatives programme, which aims to positively influence healthy eating habits, especially those of low-income families, through promoting greater access to and availability of healthy and safe food using a community development approach. Finally, we noted the research carried out by Safefood on a range of topics, including obesity, food poverty and health inequalities.

The Council considered various governance matters relating to Safefood, noting its revised business plan for 2025 and that the 2024 annual report and accounts were being audited. The NSMC approved Safefood's business plan for 2026 and recommended the associated budget grant provision. The Council also approved Safefood's corporate plan for 2026-28 and a post regrading in the body.

The Council acknowledged the retirement of Dr Gary Kearney as chief executive officer of the Food Safety Promotion Board/Safefood and the valuable contribution that he had made to the work of the body in various roles since 2002. The Council also noted that the outgoing CEO, Dr Kearney, had designated Ms Patricia Fitzgerald, Safefood director of corporate operations, to carry out the functions of the CEO from 1 January 2026 until the new CEO is in place. Ministers approved the appointment of Dr Joanne Uí Chrualaoich as the new chief executive officer of the Food Safety Promotion Board/Safefood with effect from 19 January 2026.

Finally, the Council agreed that the next NSMC health and food safety sectoral meeting will be held in the autumn of 2026.

Mr McGrath: We are aware that there is a crisis in our Ambulance Service. Response times are deteriorating, not improving, under the Minister's watch. Was any opportunity taken to discuss mutual support between the two ambulance services, especially for 999 emergency calls, which have better response times in the South than in the North, that could help people in border communities such as Fermanagh, south Armagh and south Down?

Mr Nesbitt: I can confirm that there is ongoing cooperation between the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service and the National Ambulance Service. I direct the Member to look at ambulance handover times over the additional winter pressure periods, particularly in the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust area, where the target time of two hours was met more often than it was failed.

Mr McGuigan (The Chairperson of the Committee for Health): Minister, your statement covered a lot of important issues, and there is a lot to be welcomed, particularly the GMC's recognition of the all-island paediatric cardiology training scheme. All sectors of our health service, when I engage with them, talk about training and recruitment as key issues affecting workforce and, ultimately, patient outcomes. How many trainees are expected to benefit from the cardiology training scheme? Are there plans to extend similar all-island specialist training schemes into other clinical areas that face workforce issues in the North?

Mr Nesbitt: I do not have that number, but I will certainly write to the Member when I have ascertained the figure. As a matter of principle, I am keen to look at all-island training cooperation.

Mr Robinson: I cannot speak highly enough of the good work of the North West Cancer Centre. Can the Minister detail to the House what plans there are to expand services at the centre?

Mr Nesbitt: I agree with the Member: the North West Cancer Centre is an exemplar of good practice and of cross-border cooperation. As I have said many times, the border does not demark health and social care needs; it highlights the fact that we have common goals and common purposes to treat common problems.

The Member will be aware that there is a huge deficit in the Department of Health's budget for this year. In order to avoid a strike and make sure that the workforce got their pay entitlements this year — I will not say "pay rises", because staff would dispute that it is a pay rise, given the rate of inflation — we will have a big problem next year. The idea of expanding services is therefore not on my agenda, I am afraid. I would love it to be, but it is not. My agenda is to shift left into the neighbourhood programme.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for his statement. We have talked many times about how patients in Northern Ireland cannot access chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. Dublin has said that it is unable to offer more patients from Northern Ireland that treatment, but did the Minister have any further discussions about it or any other life-saving cancer care and treatment cooperation between North and South at the NSMC meeting?

Mr Nesbitt: I did indeed bring up CAR T-cell therapy, because I wanted to confirm with the Minister for Health in the Irish Government and her officials that what I have been telling the House is accurate, which it is, but I say once again that a very specific clinical environment is needed to carry out CAR-T. That certainly does not exist in ward 10 north at Belfast City Hospital, which is the current haematology ward. The new ward will not come on stream until perhaps 2031, but the plan is to have a new ward that will be compatible with the exercise of CAR-T. In the meantime, we have asked officials from the Department of Health in Dublin whether they could increase their capacity to include patients from Northern Ireland. Their current capacity is maxed out from dealing with their own patients in the jurisdiction. Even if their capacity were to expand, we would get there with our new ward before they would be able to service us.

Ms D Armstrong: I thank the Minister for his statement. I had the pleasure of joining him recently on a visit to the South West Acute Hospital (SWAH), where he again had the opportunity to see at first hand the significant level of work that is under way there to tackle Northern Ireland's waiting lists. Will the Minister continue to engage with his Southern counterpart to explore future opportunities for greater North/South cooperation in order to sustain the hospital as a site with a solid future ahead of it?

Mr Nesbitt: In my first address to the House as Minister of Health, one of the points that I made was that I had no political or ideological objection to sensible cross-border cooperation on health and social care — in fact, quite the opposite — so, as a matter of principle, I will always look at ways in which to expand cooperation.

The Member will be aware that, at the South West Acute Hospital, there were, for a long time, two uncommissioned theatres and wards, although one has now been commissioned and is being used extremely successfully for orthopaedics: hips and joint replacements. Over 75% of people are going in, getting their new knee or hip and getting home on the same day. There is more potential, however. On that visit, as the Member will be aware, not only did we see magnificent things being done but we got a real sense from the workforce that they want to do more. They said, "Please, let us do more", and I am keen to try to facilitate that. We need to stop putting an exclusive emphasis on the one thing that is not happening in the SWAH and start celebrating all the wonderful things that are happening there.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Minister for his statement. I am really happy to hear that conversations were had about children, both in death and in life. Can he give the House any update on the paediatric pathology services that were discussed at the meeting, as well as on rare diseases? I think specifically about an issue on which I have been asking for a meeting with the strategic planning and performance group (SPPG): children with specific types of dwarfism.

Mr Nesbitt: Yes, there was a discussion about paediatric pathology. The issue has not budged: there is a global shortage of paediatric pathologists. The two authorities are scoping out what they need for the two jurisdictions. Once we have done that, we will come together to see whether it is possible to have an all-island solution. Given the global shortage in that workforce, it seems ambitious to try to get an all-island solution and overambitious to try to get two solutions. We are in that process, and it is taking time, but that is the way it is.

One of the themes was rare diseases. Individually, they are rare, but, collectively, they are common and affect over 400,000 people on this island. We have made good progress on implementing the Northern Ireland rare disease action plan, but more can and will be done. We are exploring possibilities for collaboration. Most recently, we looked at a Shared Island proposal to establish an all-island metabolic network that would bring equitable care from robust services as close to home as clinically possible. Those conversations continue between officials. It is not as though the issue only comes up on the rare occasion when there is a sectoral meeting.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Minister, for bringing a sense of reality to the House on the capacity in the Republic of Ireland to deal with our problems.

You said that you:

Will you outline what those additional areas are and say whether there will be action on them?

Mr Nesbitt: We are in the foothills of those discussions. There will be another sectoral meeting — that is the plan — in either the autumn or, at the very latest, early January. The Government of Ireland take on the presidency of the European Union on 1 June, which may shift their focus to some extent. Either way, before the end of our mandate, there will be another sectoral meeting. At that meeting, I expect officials to detail where those additional areas for potential cooperation are. However, I am not in a position to say to the Member, "This is where I want us to go".

Mr Donnelly: Thanks to the Minister for his statement today. We have heard many times about the potential for cross-border cooperation on health, so the statement is positive.

You said:

What specific commitments have been agreed, and what practical changes will people with disabilities see as a result of that cooperation?

Mr Nesbitt: Again, there were no specifics mentioned at the sectoral meeting, but I will certainly take that question away, because, in fairness, it is important, and come back to the Member with something a bit more substantive.

Ms Ferguson: Cooperation and collaboration on research and treatment pathways for rare diseases offer clear benefits for people across the island, particularly given the population that we have across the island. Minister, you stated that there is a commitment to promoting and strengthening that work, and you mentioned exploration of a metabolic network. Will you outline the practical actions being taken to support and advance that across the island?

Mr Nesbitt: The Member makes a good point about population size, because, as I said, rare diseases may be individually rare, but, collectively, they are common, with about 410,000 people on the island suffering from some sort of rare disease. To be able to do proper research and design proper and effective pathways, you always need a minimum population size. In neither Northern Ireland nor the Republic is the population big enough to crack that for some rare diseases, but, on an all-island basis, we cross the line into what is possible. In order to achieve what we want to achieve, we try to adhere to four principles: improving diagnosis; increasing awareness among healthcare professionals; enhancing the coordination of care; and boosting access to specialist services and treatments.

Mr Gaston: As part of the ongoing work between the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service and the National Ambulance Service, was the issue of crews not being alerted to category 2 calls in the last hour of their shift due to the ongoing action short of strike highlighted as a major concern? Have you any update for the House on bringing the action short of strike to an end to ensure that category 2 calls are assigned to crews within the last hour of their shift?

Mr Nesbitt: There was not a specific discussion about the issue, which, I know, is important to the Member. The two services continue to make steady progress in strengthening joint arrangements for cross-border emergency responses under the North/South specialist ambulance response programme. Work is progressing on harmonising clinical and operational procedures, updating the memorandum of understanding on mutual aid and improving control room interoperability.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister for his statement. Although there is no specific reference to CAR-T in the statement, I welcome the fact that it has been raised at the North/South cancer policy and strategy group on a number of occasions since Catherine Sherry's passing from blood cancer in May last year. Catherine's birthday would have been next week. Notwithstanding your previous answers, Minister, what progress has been made on planning for the delivery — not the business case — of CAR-T in blood cancer units in Belfast? What progress has been made from a cross-border perspective on CAR-T, as referenced in the minutes of the group's meeting of 25 October?

Mr Nesbitt: I am sorry for the loss that the Member refers to. As I have said previously, you need a specific, clinically secure environment for CAR-T. Ward 10 north at Belfast City Hospital does not cut it. I have visited 10 north. Let me put it this way: if a visitor asked to see how well we look after patients and how good our facilities are in secondary care, you would not take them to 10 north in Belfast City Hospital.

There will be a new haematology ward in Belfast City Hospital. Speaking off the top of my head, I think that the current delivery date is 2031, so it is a number of years away. Once we have it, we will be able to do CAR-T. I have told the Member before that we have spoken to the Department of Health in Dublin. It is maxed out in capacity, and increasing the capacity there to service us would take longer than it will take us to open our new haematology ward and deliver CAR-T in Belfast, according to our current schedule.

Mr Chambers: What assessment does the Minister have of the impediments to cross-border healthcare? Does he believe that there is an appetite on both sides of the border to resolve those impediments?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question. As I said in my statement, the all-island paediatric cardiology training programme qualification has been added to the General Medical Council's list of recognised specialist qualifications. That will enhance workforce mobility and cross-border collaboration. That is something that Jennifer Carroll MacNeill and I went on to discuss. The barrier of asymmetrical qualifications — qualifications that do not migrate or are not recognised in both jurisdictions — is an impediment. As the two Ministers, we tasked officials with scoping out the qualifications that do not apply equally in the two jurisdictions and bringing us the list at the next sectoral meeting, where we will take action. When I talk about action, I mean that we are both prepared to write jointly to the appropriate professional bodies, if that is necessary, to try to ensure symmetrical qualifications that are recognised in both jurisdictions.

Mr Speaker: That concludes questions on the statement. Members, take your ease before we move to the next item.

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

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

Mr Lyons: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Following the introduction of additional measures to the Pension Schemes Bill, I seek approval of a subsequent legislative consent motion (LCM) to include provision for two of those amendment measures. The timeline for progressing the Bill through Westminster presents several challenges for introducing corresponding measures through an Executive Bill. It would not be possible for an Executive Bill to be passed by the Assembly in time to align with the operational dates for certain provisions of the Westminster Bill. Given the fact that such a delay would result in the provisions not being in place in Northern Ireland at the same time as in the rest of the UK, I am bringing an LCM to extend two measures of the Westminster Bill to Northern Ireland, in addition to the five that have already been agreed on. The new provisions in the Bill concern pre-97 indexation and the funding of the board of the Pension Protection Fund. They were introduced subsequent to the Assembly vote on the LCM on 18 November 2025, and thus need to be agreed.

I will give a brief overview of the two new provisions. Clause 109 relates to the pre-97 indexation of the Pension Protection Fund and the financial assistance scheme. It enables the payment of inflation increases, which is known as indexation, on pension benefits for compensation schemes accrued before April 1997. The measure will ensure that compensation from the Pension Protection Fund and the financial assistance scheme on pensions built up before 6 April 1997 is linked to CPI inflation up to a cap of 2·5% and that it applies prospectively for members whose schemes provided mandatory or statutory inflation increases on pre-1997 pensions. It is a positive measure and will boost the incomes of those affected.

Subsections 4 and 5 of clause 116 of the Bill seek to amend the Pensions Act 2004 to implement changes to the Pension Protection Fund and fraud compensation levies. Legislative consent is required to allow for the administrative expenses of the Pension Protection Fund and the Fraud Compensation Fund to be met by the reserves within those funds. The Pension Protection Fund and the Fraud Compensation Fund are UK-wide schemes. Therefore, it is essential that provision is made for Northern Ireland to be included.

If it is agreed that clauses 109 and 116(4) and 116(5) of the Bill should extend to here, it will allow those important provisions to be enacted at the same time across the UK and ensure that citizens of Northern Ireland benefit from their introduction at the same time as citizens in the rest of the UK. Whilst I seek to avoid using the LCM process, where possible, it is sensible to use it to secure, for Northern Ireland members, the pension scheme benefits afforded by those provisions by agreeing to an LCM in respect of the listed clauses. The intention is that a parity Bill will be brought before the Assembly for all relevant remaining clauses in the Westminster Bill.

I am aware of the Assembly's role in considering legislation, and of the Committee's scrutiny role in particular. Whilst Standing Order 42A(9) does not invoke a requirement for the Committee to report on subsequent LCMs, details on the amendment measures have been provided to the Committee for Communities, and officials will provide an additional briefing to the Committee at its meeting on 29 January. The preference would have been to have conducted that briefing in advance of today's debate, but time constraints connected to the progress of the Westminster Bill have not afforded the opportunity for longer consideration. I therefore beg to move that the Assembly agrees the motion.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): I thank the Minister for his remarks. As Chairperson of the Committee for Communities, I will contribute to the debate on the second legislative consent motion for the Pension Schemes Bill.

Members will recall that, in November 2025, the Assembly debated and provided consent for an initial legislative consent motion on the Bill. At the time, the Committee for Communities had had the opportunity to receive departmental briefings, seek written evidence from stakeholders and publish a comprehensive report supporting the extension of those provisions in the North. However, the situation today is somewhat different. The subsequent motion has become necessary because, following our previous debate, the British Government introduced further amendments to the Bill at Report Stage in the House of Commons on 3 December 2025. The amendments introduced new provisions regarding pre-1997 indexation and the funding of the board of the Pension Protection Fund — matters that were not part of the Bill when the Assembly originally granted its consent.

The Minister for Communities laid the legislative consent memorandum for the new provisions last Monday, 19 January 2026. The Committee for Communities had the memo added to the pack for information only at its meeting last Thursday, 22 January, but a briefing could not be offered before this week. The Order Paper indicated that the debate was scheduled for today, so the Committee has, in effect, had no opportunity to receive a departmental briefing, call for evidence or undertake any scrutiny of the measures in advance of the debate. It would be useful to know when the addition was notified to the Department, because, clearly, the Department may be receiving things late in the day from Westminster, and it is important that we seek to tighten up on that, if possible. Westminster should be aware that such a situation has an impact here.

Consequently, I must inform the Assembly that the Committee was unable to reach a formal position on the legislative consent motion. I therefore cannot offer the Committee's endorsement on the basis of evidence-based scrutiny, but I can, for Members' benefit, place on record the intent of the provisions as outlined in the memorandum provided. The Minister has provided some detail on the issues at play.

While the Committee has not scrutinised the specific clauses, we are familiar with the broader arguments about parity in pension legislation. The Department reiterates that, although pensions are a devolved matter, we operate, in effect, a single system across Britain and here. The urgency is driven by the legislative time frame in Westminster, and the Bill is anticipated to attain Royal Assent by spring 2026. The Department has advised that, if the provisions are not extended to the North via the Bill, we will require a separate Assembly Bill to maintain parity. The Department argues that the delay caused by a separate legislative process could mean that citizens here would not benefit from the changes, specifically the potential boost to income from pre-1997 indexation, at the same time as those in Britain. Clearly, we do not want that situation to arise.

In conclusion, the Committee for Communities has consistently taken the view that, where possible, legislation on devolved matters should originate in the Assembly, and the Minister made a similar point. We also prize our role as scrutineers, and it is a matter of regret that the legislative timetable at Westminster has precluded the Committee from performing that function on these late-stage amendments. However, the Committee has no desire to obstruct what appear to be positive developments. We note the Department's assurance that the pre-1997 indexation will make a meaningful difference to members' incomes and that the funding changes will simplify the levy landscape. Therefore, whilst I must formally state that the Committee has had no opportunity to reach an agreed position, I can indicate, as Chairperson, that I support the principle of the motion so that people in the North are not disadvantaged and can access the benefits on the same timeline as those in Britain.

Mrs Dillon: Notwithstanding the issues outlined by the Committee Chair, I will take the opportunity to say that it is important that we get these measures in place. I have placed on the record before that I welcome the Minister's work in the area, specifically on early access to pensions for those who are terminally ill. That is worth reiterating today. Whilst we have not been able to carry out the scrutiny fully, we must ensure that those who need early access to their pension because they are terminally ill get it and get the appropriate amount of money. That is really important.

I commend the work of Marie Curie in lobbying the Assembly's all-party group on cancer and MPs at Westminster to ensure that people who are terminally ill will get access to the pension that they have worked all their life to pay into. It is only but compassionate and empathetic delivery to ensure that they can access their pension when they are terminally ill so that they and their families do not face financial hardship.

I therefore place on record the work that has been done and welcome the legislative consent motion, notwithstanding the Committee's inability to scrutinise the memorandum. Let us hope that we can see the provisions delivered for the people who most need them: the terminally ill, who need early access to their pension, and their families.

Mr Lyons: I thank the Members who contributed to the debate. I thank the Chairperson of the Committee for Communities for the broad welcome that he and the Committee have given to the moves.

I recognise the fact that the Committee did not have proper time to scrutinise the legislative consent memorandum. I assure the Chairperson, the Committee and the whole House that that was not because of some lack of desire on my part to ensure that the Committee got to undertake proper scrutiny. As is often the case with many such Bills that originate in Westminster, there are time pressures involved, and I understand that the Committee has expressed concern about the approach taken by the LCM on other matters, and I will address that concern in due course.

I have raised those issues in conversations with Stephen Timms and other Ministers and told them that respect needs to be shown for the devolved processes. I understand that there are times when things move quickly as a result of things needing to be done owing to time pressures at Westminster, but Committees in this place should, without exception, be able to undertake proper scrutiny. I recognise that circumstances sometimes do not allow that to happen, but I make it clear that it is certainly not because of any lack of want on my part to ensure that the Committee can play its role.

I hope that Westminster's approach will change in future so that Committees get the time that they need to scrutinise LCMs properly. I believe, however, that the main issues have been rehearsed. Maintaining parity is key for the most important reason, which is to ensure that people in Northern Ireland are treated in a fair and equal way.

I note Mrs Dillon's comments. We have talked about the issue a number of times before, and it is an area of agreement. I have worked with UK Government Ministers on it, and I also pay tribute to those who have been lobbying for the change to be made. We often talk about the need to support those who are most vulnerable, and it is certainly the case that people who experience end-of-life issues have not only financial pressures that come to bear on them but accompanying huge emotional distress. We therefore want to make sure that people are helped and that those who have paid into the system get the benefit from having done so in the time that they have left. I therefore thank the Member for continuing to raise the issue and assure her of my commitment to ensuring that we will do what we can here to address it. I commend the motion to the Assembly.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ladies and gentlemen, I ask that you take your ease for a few moments.

Ms Bradshaw: I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): 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. An amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, so the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate.

Ms Bradshaw: I rise to speak to what should be a straightforward and urgent matter: the long-awaited response from the Executive Office on the findings and recommendations of research into the deeply sensitive issue of clerical child sexual abuse, which was submitted by the interdepartmental working group to the Department in July 2025. The research was substantial and comprised three independent projects that had been commissioned by the Executive Office: a review of historical records; an oral history of the experience and expectations of victims and survivors; and an in-depth review of safeguarding policy and practice in faith-based organisations. The research was designed to inform policy on how the Executive will address the legacy of clerical abuse and on the prevention of future abuse in faith-based settings.

That work was shaped, in large part, by the survivors' reference group. I acknowledge the courage of the victims and survivors who participated and their generosity with their time. They participated at significant personal cost, because they believed that telling their stories would lead to accountability, justice and reform. The Alliance Party's concern today is not about the quality of that work but about what has happened — or, more accurately, what has not happened — since. Members will know that throughout the mandate and beyond, I have consistently raised issues of institutional and clerical abuse in the Assembly and with departmental officials. I have done so on behalf of the victims and survivors who shared their experiences with me directly and spoke with courage and openness in the hope that that would lead to action.

Listening to those experiences and hearing how abuse continues to shape their lives, years or even decades later, fundamentally changes how one understands delay and inaction. That is why the absence of visible progress since the reports were submitted to the Executive Office is so concerning. To understand why that delay matters so deeply, we need to confront a more difficult question: how was the abuse allowed to continue unchecked and able to remain hidden for so long? Uncomfortable as it is, the answer speaks to the power that was held over young people and vulnerable adults by institutions and individuals. That power was exercised in settings that were presented as places of safety, morality and care, in which children were taught to trust authority and not question it. Those were trusting young children, teenagers and adults, some of whom were already isolated, struggling and seeking reassurance for belonging when they entered environments that they were told were safe. Instead, they experienced betrayal, often by people whom they were encouraged to trust. As that betrayal came with authority, many did not have the confidence to speak up. When some did speak up, they were dismissed or silenced. That dynamic of silence, power and fear is the central reason for the abuse remaining hidden for so long.

Survivors speak of two harms: the abuse itself and the decades of silence and institutional indifference that followed. That is why responsibility for acting with urgency now rests so heavily with the Assembly and the Executive Office. That frustration has been articulated powerfully by survivors. Nikella Holmes, who contributed to the research, has said that survivors:

Those words should give us all pause for thought.

It is also important to make clear that such abuse was not and is not confined to one denomination or faith. The institutions and the perpetrators differed, but the victims did not. Unfortunately, as we in the Assembly know all too well, the same patterns emerged in many different faith-based settings with different forms of abuse, whether that was against the children who were put in children's homes, in the case of the historical institutional abuse, or against the vulnerable mothers and pregnant women who were put into mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and, sometimes, workhouses.

The harm does not end for victims and survivors when the abuse ends: it follows them into adulthood, shaping their relationships, their mental and physical health and their sense of safety in the world. Delays like this reopen wounds, retraumatise survivors and force them, once again, to sit with uncertainty, waiting for acknowledgement that what they endured mattered and was wrong. When it first became clear, last summer, that little movement had followed the submission of the research, I publicly expressed concern about the lack of progress and the need for timely engagement with victims and survivors. Unfortunately, those concerns remain.

In recent months, I have raised the issue at the Committee for the Executive Office with departmental officials, and I have tabled a series of questions for written answer seeking clarity on whether those reports will be published, whether an action plan is being developed and whether funding and a clear timeline for delivery have been identified. The responses have followed a similar pattern. We were told that the findings were being carefully considered, that no decisions had yet been taken and that officials remained committed to keeping victims and survivors informed. The difficulty is that survivors do not feel informed, and I know that all MLAs received a letter at the start of the year outlining their concern on that. They have felt that they have been left waiting. That is not victim-centred, and that is not trauma-informed practice. We use those terms very freely right across our public services, but, when communication is not forthcoming and that communication line is flat, victims will once again feel that they are being silenced.

It should not take the tabling of a motion in the Chamber for action to follow. I am aware that, yesterday, an email was received by campaigners at 6.32 pm from the private office offering a meeting with the junior Ministers. I welcome that and will not be churlish about it, but Members need to know that that request for a meeting was submitted on 19 November. Survivors were encouraged to engage in the process in good faith, and those delays in responding severely risk undermining the trust on which the whole process depends. Victims and survivors understand complexity. They accept that serious findings and recommendations take time to consider. What they find very difficult to understand — rightly so — is why requests for information or meetings go unanswered and why engagement so often follows only when political pressure is applied. As Anthony Gribben of the Dromore group has said, it really is:

This is not a time for haste; this is a time for political leadership. Complexity cannot excuse a lack of communication with the very people whom this work is meant to support, particularly where sensitivity and survivor well-being must come first.

I want to pick up on a point that Patrick Corrigan of Amnesty International raised with MLAs this morning in an email. He said:

I do want to impress upon that. This is different. I have already outlined the issue of historical abuse of children in homes and in mother-and-baby institutions. We know from stories that have been coming forward and from the inquiries that have been going on in some of the Churches that this remains today and is a current safeguarding issue in some places.

The motion does not ask Ministers to pre-empt outcomes but asks for action, transparency and accountability. The publication of publicly funded reports should be forthcoming shortly. A clear and funded response to the recommendations and clarity on the Executive Office's position on the recommendation for an independent public inquiry are all essential if trust is to be rebuilt.

Before I finish, I want to address the People Before Profit amendment, which seeks to ensure that religious and other institutions take proactive steps to preserve relevant records as a matter of basic responsibility. Records matter for accountability, for truth and for survivors who may one day seek answers. They will rely on records for those. We will certainly support Mr Carroll's amendment, and I thank him for tabling it.

The Assembly has a responsibility to ensure that the work that it commissions leads to meaningful outcomes. Supporting the motion is about meeting that responsibility. For victims and survivors, it is about finally being listened to and heard. For that reason, I urge Members to support our motion.

Mr Carroll: I beg to move the following amendment:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Gerry, you have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. All other Members who are called to speak in the debate will have five minutes. Gerry, please open the debate on the amendment.

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Members who tabled the motion for bringing it to the Floor and for supporting my amendment. I will expand upon it in my speech. It is important, in a general sense, that we have a process in place that recognises the deep hurt caused by clerical institutions towards people who they were supposed to be caring for. At least tens of thousands of women and children were directly failed by those institutions. Families were ripped apart, and children and young babies were neglected and, effectively, killed by those institutions through malnutrition and other acts of abuse and harm. I do not believe that they have truly atoned for their crimes. I support the motion, as I said, and hope that the amendment adds to and strengthens it.

Families that have been in contact with me and others are asking that the First Minister and deputy First Minister publish the research reports that they have been sitting on. They feel that the process is taking far too long. The survivor stories, I am told, make for very hard reading: it is believed that they, in themselves, could force MLAs to act much more quickly and to support legislation coming through, if the reports are published.

There is also concern about the First Minister and deputy First Minister having failed to meet victims since the reports were commissioned in July. Some people are asking whether the reports have been read at all. I note, as the proposer of the motion did, that a letter was sent out late last night. It is not for me to comment on that, except to say that I suppose that people have been bounced into action by the motion, so it may be a case of saying, "Fair play" to the proposer of the motion. People ask why things are taking so long. How long are victims and survivors supposed to wait to get proper justice?

I want to focus many of my comments, at this stage, on Milltown cemetery and issues connected to it. That is not just because it is in my constituency; other Members have raised issues about it in the past. It is not just because people have come to me with huge concerns, which I will detail in a second, but because the cemetery provides a snapshot of the scale of the abuse that took place over many decades and of the outstanding issues for victims and survivors, which, I imagine, are replicated in other places. Some information has been aired publicly through media stories and representations by victims, survivors and others at Stormont Committees, but those need to be properly heard today, with other issues being added to them.

It is clear that religious institutions, with the full support of the state, failed those mothers and babies, when they were alive. What is not focused on so much in the debate in general, however, is how they have also been failed in death. It has been documented that at places such as Milltown, Tuam cemetery in the South and other places —.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. Does he agree that the dioceses, particularly around Milltown, need to work with families and those who are trying to find the remains of their loved ones? Those people were somebody in their lives, even if they were not somebody to those institutions.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member. I totally agree with that point.

Going back to the point about Milltown, there is particular concern that there could be mass graves under landfill. Bodies have actually been moved around because of unmarked burials. Some documentation exists for burials, but there are unmarked burials as well. Burials took place at the Poor Ground from 1937 until the 1990s. Adults, children and thousands of infants are buried there. Once the Poor Ground had been filled with burials, Milltown was due to close it in, I think, May 1980. Various articles reported that that would happen because there was no space left to bury people. That did not happen, however. Some of the land was used, by the diocese of Down and Connor, for landfill. Money was taken from skip companies and construction companies, and receipts exist for that. It is not clear, however, when dumping took place on the land, what happened to the body parts.

I call on the Executive Office to ensure that those documents are hunted down, analysed, protected and secured. The diocese has refused to bring back all the 37 acres. It purchased a fraction of it. Presumably it knows what is underneath it and does not want to be liable for it. Families that presented evidence about some of that to the Executive Office have requested that that land be tested to find the exact location of their relatives. Not everybody may want that, but some certainly do. I understand that records are available for at least 11,000 people who are buried on that land in the cemetery, most of whom were infants from Belfast hospitals, mother-and-baby homes, children's homes, workhouses, Catholic institutions and private addresses in some of the poorest communities.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Member for giving way. Does the Member agree that time is running out for the victims and survivors of clerical abuse at the hands of monsters such as Paul Dunleavy and Malachy Finegan, as well as for those survivors' wives, husbands, children and families?

For the First Minister and deputy First Minister to sit on their hands and not make a decision on the recommendations of this courageous report adds to the trauma and heartbreak that victims and their families continue to endure.

Mr Carroll: I agree with the Member that time is running out and about the lack of speed, to put it mildly, from the Executive Office. I totally agree with that.

As I said, there are 11,000 records available of babies and infants buried in the Milltown site. It is believed, however, that there are many, many more for whom records do not exist or are being destroyed. I do not know what is happening or what needs to be done to secure those records. Like, I am sure, most others in the House, I am concerned primarily about the victims and the families of people who need answers and justice. People in my constituency and beyond — many people from beyond West Belfast are buried in Milltown — may not know whether their loved one is buried in Milltown or, in some cases, who is buried beneath their loved one in the same grave. That is important, especially to people for whom religious burial is important, as it is to many across our society. Graves are still being sold now that could well contain the bodies of large numbers of infants. There is too much secrecy from the diocese and the Catholic Church around that.

Records and documentation are extremely important, as the mover of the motion mentioned. The Executive Office needs to do everything possible to protect them. I am keen to hear from the junior Minister about what TEO is doing already to seek and protect those records to ensure not only that the true scale of abuse and neglect is charted and that people who are entitled to compensation get it but that those who seek information about loved ones — I appreciate that not everybody will, but some do — and what happened to them get that information. It should be readily available to them. There are women alive today who went through those institutions and had babies removed from them in all sorts of horrible circumstances. They deserve some semblance of truth and justice. They deserve answers as well.

I have sent questions for written answer to the Health Minister seeking confirmation. It is my understanding that most hospitals across the North — certainly, in Belfast, at least — had grave plots in Milltown that were sold back to the diocese of Down and Connor in 1994. Organ theft took place. I understand that some organs have been returned, but the practice was pretty widespread. At the time, the British Government had an anatomy inspector who went round the homes and institutions to secure the bodies without any consent from family members. What documentation exists about that? That is obviously horrible and gruesome, but it is also serious stuff. What has the Health Minister sought out? What has TEO done about that? What communication have they had with the British Government?

There is a willingness across the board to get a cross-departmental group to act on the recommendations. However, my fear about all things cross-departmental is that they move at a snail's pace. Victims need and deserve a public inquiry, an action plan and a multi-annual budget commitment. Time is of the essence. As I understand it, there may also be another issue — I am keen to hear the Minister's response to this — which is that, when people die and are buried in council cemeteries, the council registrar issues a funeral card and documentation that is kept in council archives, but the state, certainly historically, allowed the Catholic Church to have its own records. My understanding is that the paperwork that gives the authority to bury a body is called a "green form". Again, what work has TEO done to secure that paperwork? That needs to be focused on as well.

We also need to have a conversation about and a focus on Church assets. Churches are wealthy organisations. Archbishop Eamon Martin has tried to claim that seizing Church assets is opportunism. You would think that he would have a bit more humility. That is nothing more than an attempt at deflection. Church and state have collective responsibility. If they did not act appropriately, which they did not, there need to be consequences. An immoral, legal scheme was created whereby women were incarcerated and abused for decades and tens of thousands of children died — were killed — or were taken from their mothers and trafficked across the world. That was completely disgusting and horrible, but it was legal.

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

Mr Carroll: I will. It was allowed by the state and those who ran institutions. To claim that we cannot design a system in which compensation is paid out fairly is simply untrue. I urge Members to back the amendment and the motion.

Mrs Dillon: First and foremost, our thoughts are with all victims and survivors of clerical abuse. That abuse was a profound betrayal, and, for many, the harm was compounded by silence, denial and institutional failure over many years. Those responsible occupied positions of authority and trust and used that power to shield themselves from scrutiny. We see so often that abusers are people in a position of trust. That is how they get access to those whom they abuse.

The motion is not about institutions protecting their reputation but about people. It is about victims and survivors whose lives were fundamentally altered and who have shown extraordinary courage in coming forward. Their voices must lead the way on how truth is acknowledged, accountability pursued and meaningful change delivered. I pay tribute to the survivors' reference group, which Paula and others have acknowledged, and to all those who have campaigned to raise awareness of abuse in faith-based settings. Many have shared deeply personal and painful experiences so that others would be believed and so that the scale of harm could no longer be ignored. That courage places a responsibility on all of us in the Chamber to listen carefully and act responsibly. There is concern that the research findings and recommendations on clerical abuse have not yet been made public. Survivors rightly seek transparency and clarity.

At the same time, it is essential that we get this right. The proposer of the motion said that it is not about haste but about getting it right, and I appreciate that. Engagement and communication must be prioritised, and I acknowledge that it must be continuous and respectful and must be shaped by lived experience. It cannot be limited or sporadic. Any next steps must be taken carefully, ethically and with the well-being of survivors to the fore. Survivors should never feel that decisions are being made without them. They should be confident that we in the House and those making the decisions want those decisions to be developed thoroughly, responsibly and in a way that will stand the test of time.

Access to records, as outlined in the amendment, is a central issue for many victims and survivors. I absolutely support the amendment. We have learnt from previous processes that truth and accountability depend on the preservation, proper storage and disclosure of the records held by many institutions. There should be no circumstances in which a religious order destroys records. Religious and other organisations should take proactive steps now to ensure that relevant records are not only not destroyed but protected and made accessible to those seeking information about their experiences. No institution should be allowed to destroy or conceal material that could assist survivors. Unfortunately, as has been seen recently across different denominations, it is not simply a historical issue. For many, it is a live and ongoing reality. Full and open disclosure should be considered to be the minimum standard for institutions seeking to demonstrate that they take their responsibilities seriously.

It is also essential that allegations of abuse continue to be investigated thoroughly and sensitively and that victims and survivors who wish to pursue justice through the courts be supported in doing so in a compassionate and trauma-informed way, including by the police. I declare an interest as a member of the Policing Board. Victims and survivors should be supported through the process in whatever way is required.

Finally, while addressing the legacy of clerical abuse, it is vital that we ensure that the conditions that allowed such abuse to occur are never repeated. I have some concerns in that regard. We still hear the narrative about abusers being strange people whom we cannot trust, yet people say of abusers, "He's a nice guy", "He's a lovely guy", "I know him", "He's my brother" or, "He's my friend". Abusers are charmers. They are nice people. That is how they get access to children, young people and vulnerable adults. We need to ensure that the narrative changes so that everyone understands that the abusers are among us. They are people whom we know and, sometimes, love. We need to stop talking about them as though they are strange beings from another place: they are not.

Victims and survivors have shown leadership through their resilience and determination. Our responsibility is to ensure that their voices remain at the centre of this work —

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

Mrs Dillon: — that the truth is not delayed or denied and that they and all abused victims are believed.

Mrs Cameron: Our party supports the motion and the amendment. It is incredibly important that the records are preserved, so the DUP is content to support the amendment.

This is a deeply sensitive and distressing issue, and it is vital that our focus remains firmly on the victims and survivors of clerical child abuse — people who were profoundly failed by institutions that should have protected them. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to engage with victims and survivors in my previous role as a junior Minister in the Executive Office, and I recognise the courage that it took to speak out about the often unspeakable experiences that too many endured. For many survivors, the harm did not end when the abuse ended; it was compounded by years of silence and denial and a lack of accountability. That lasting trauma must be recognised honestly in the Chamber.

The three independent research projects commissioned by the Executive Office marked an important step forward. They examined how institutions responded to allegations, recorded the lived experiences and expectations of victims and survivors and reviewed the safeguarding policies of faith organisations. I place on record my sincere gratitude to the victims and survivors who took part. Coming forward to share deeply personal experiences of abuse takes immense courage, and no one should underestimate the emotional toll that that process involves. I also pay tribute to the survivors' reference group and other campaigners, whose persistence and determination ensured that those voices were heard and that the issue could not be ignored or quietly set aside.

While that work has been completed, victims and survivors deserve clarity about what happens next. They deserve transparency, consistent engagement and confidence that their experiences are shaping outcomes. Let me be clear: this is not about delaying action, nor is it about avoiding difficult decisions. It is imperative that the next steps are the right steps, and our collective response must be victim-centred and trauma-informed. The focus must be on getting this right, not on creating quick headlines.

The recommendations under consideration will, no doubt, raise serious and complex questions, including on their scope, access to records, their cost and, crucially, their impact on victims and survivors. That is particularly true on the question of a public inquiry. That is a decision that should never be taken lightly, but, equally, victims must not feel forgotten while deliberations continue. Ongoing communication and meaningful engagement are essential, and survivors must be kept informed throughout the process. The issue should never be politicised. I believe that Members across the House recognise the responsibility that we carry.

In supporting the motion and the amendment, our objective is clear: ensuring that the response delivers truth, accountability and meaningful outcomes for victims and survivors. As we all know, the victims and survivors have waited long enough, and they deserve nothing less.

Mr Butler: The debate must begin and end with the victims and survivors of clerical child abuse and their families, who have carried the weight of that abuse for decades, at its centre. Their suffering did not end when the abuse stopped; for many, it was compounded by the silence, disbelief, denial and deliberate institutional protection of perpetrators. To each of those victims and survivors and their families, I offer my heartfelt support and that of my party

In 2018, the Pope paid a visit to the Republic of Ireland. I was the only unionist representative to attend at that time and was put under the microscope by a number of people. One of my overriding reasons for going that day was my hope that the Pope would make a sincere and heartfelt apology and, more than that, outline what that Church was going do to redress the imbalance of evidence. That did not happen in 2018, and, sadly, a lot of those families and victims still feel that they are without justice.

However, it is not just the Catholic Church but every institution of faith that needs to look into this. As someone of faith, I say that churches in particular should be a haven for children, women and men. They should set the standard and not fall below that bar. Churches and faith-based institutions did not merely fail to act; in too many cases, they actively concealed harm. Abusers were moved between parishes and dioceses, warnings were ignored, evidence was buried and truth was treated by people in authority as an inconvenience rather than their moral duty. That silence magnified the pain of the victim. It told victims that their lives mattered less than reputations. That stain cannot be erased and must never be repeated.

Every Member in the Chamber has, as a legislator, a responsibility to ensure that what happened is fully exposed and understood and never allowed to happen again. Learning the truth is not an act of hostility towards faith; it is an act of justice for those who were betrayed by institutions that they trusted. As legislators, our primary duty is to defend the rights of victims and survivors and to pursue justice without fear or favour. There can be no loopholes for powerful institutions. There can be no hiding place in legal technicalities, internal processes or claims of autonomy when it comes to withholding evidence or reports. No institution, religious or otherwise, should be permitted to destroy, conceal or sanitise records that relate to the abuse of children.

The motion states:

and — there is a helpful amendment, which we will support — expresses regret for the lack of meaningful engagement with victims and survivors since that time. I have stood — and sat — in the Chamber many times as we have said that that would be a priority. It is time that we put those words into absolute action.

I once again pay tribute to the survivors who have courageously shared their deeply personal experience of abuse in faith-based settings, often at great personal cost. In particular, I recognise one such person who has spoken very bravely: Margaret McGuckin. Her bravery in speaking out has helped force the issue into the light and has given voice to those who were silenced for far too long. We therefore call on the First Minister and deputy First Minister to publish the reports in full, to set out a fully funded and time-bound response and to clearly state their position on the reported recommendations for an independent public inquiry. We would like those steps to be taken sooner rather than later.

Ms McLaughlin: I support the motion and pay tribute to every victim and survivor who has come forward to share their experiences of abuse in faith-based settings. Survivors are incredibly strong and courageous, not only for speaking to someone, often for the first time in their lives, about what they have suffered but for continuing to push for accountability for others as well. Let us be clear that justice matters not only for those who have gone public but for those who have never told a soul and who remain too traumatised to speak about what they endured. When survivors are listened to, respected and believed, that sends a really strong message to our society that it is prepared to confront uncomfortable truths rather than bury them.

Honestly, it is shameful — I find it difficult to understand — that the First Minister and the deputy First Minister appear to have had so little meaningful engagement with victims and survivors since the independent reports were submitted in July 2025. The reports were commissioned by and delivered to the Executive Office, yet we have seen far too little transparency, far too little urgency and far too little respect for the very people who have already waited far too long. I understand — I will say this carefully — that, given the sensitivity of the issue, it is right that careful consideration be given, but that cannot be an excuse for delay, it cannot mean silence, and it certainly cannot mean survivors being left in the dark once again, wondering whether the system will fail them yet another time.

The motion is not only about justice for those who have experienced abuse; it is about ensuring that it is never repeated on such an industrial scale. That means action. It means having safeguards that are real, enforceable and effective. It means ensuring that warnings are not missed and investigations are not avoided or brushed aside and that the systems that are meant to protect children do exactly that. It means having robust procedures, proper record-keeping and a culture of accountability, where the protection of children is always at the heart of decision-making.

As a member of the Committee for the Executive Office, I have sat through countless hours of evidence-gathering on institutional abuse, including at the Magdalene laundries. Listening to those testimonies is not something that you forget. I have heard first-hand about the devastating impact that abuse has had on families, not only on individuals but across generations, because trauma does not end when childhood ends. It shapes lives, relationships and well-being for decades, and it can be carried through families long after the abuse itself. For many survivors, what they are asking for is not complicated: they want to know that they are being listened to; they want assurance that their experiences are being treated seriously; and they want to see that someone in the system is prepared to fight for accountability on their behalf. That is why I support the amendment from Mr Carroll.

We also have to be honest about where responsibility lies. I have engaged over many years with many victims, predominantly, but not exclusively, from the Catholic Church. As with other powerful institutions, it has often sought to cover up abuse and paedophiles within its ranks, denying survivors the truth to protect the Church's reputation, rather than the children's, and that must end. There can be no special status, no deference and no closed doors when it comes to child protection. Full cooperation with investigations and oversight must be the absolute minimum. Religious institutions must be held accountable. They must not be allowed to avoid scrutiny, and they must not be placed above the law, the truth or the rights of the victims and survivors.

It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge one fundamental point: we cannot engage constructively on the best way forward unless we know what those reports contain. We cannot shape a response, test whether it is adequate or measure whether it is properly resourced —

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

Ms McLaughlin: — and we cannot build public confidence and trust. They must be published, and it must be addressed.

Ms Ní Chuilín: We will support the Alliance motion and the People Before Profit amendment. I agree with everything that everyone has said, apart from that said by Sinéad McLaughlin and Justin McNulty, because I know that Aisling Reilly and Michelle O'Neill are not shameful. I want to put that on the record. I understand the difficulty and frustration that survivors are feeling about not getting any communication. I cannot stand over that, but to say that people are sitting on their hands and are shameful is not fair.

Ms McLaughlin: Will the Member take an intervention?

Ms Ní Chuilín: I will.

Ms McLaughlin: It is shameful that those reports have sat since July 2025, because we are hurting the victims. The longer that those reports sit and are not published, the more that it hurts victims. I feel ashamed that that has happened.

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

Ms Ní Chuilín: I appreciate the clarification, but that is not what I heard. The Member is right: for people who are going through the worst trauma in their life to respond to a call, be part of a report and then not hear anything back is not good enough. I agree with that.

The work that has gone on up to now has been on historical institutional abuse (HIA) and the Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill. The Committee Stage is still in progress, and the Committee hopes to conclude its report this week. There have been problems up to now, but, by and large, we have all approached the issue with compassion and sensitivity. Communication was key throughout. I was not on the old OFMDFM Committee when the Inquiry into HIA Bill was being dealt with, but I have spoken to many victims — most of whom were in mother-and-baby institutions, and some of whom suffered clerical abuse — about the fact that this is not about just their trauma but the trauma that was passed on to their families.

Gerry raised a point about records. I have raised that constantly throughout the process. I declare that I was a the keeper of the records when I was the Minister in the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure and then the Department for Communities. There were inconsistencies in the records kept by the religious orders and other institutions, including social services and the health and social care trusts. The PSNI has been consistent and forthcoming. Robin Swann promised that records from throughout the adoption process would be kept consistently, and that did not happen. Legislation was brought through on that. I hope that the legislation on the mother-and-baby homes will address some of the concerns of the victims and survivors of clerical abuse and that that will be rectified.

The scourge is not just historical; it is recent. We hear, on television and radio, about case after case of people being abused by people in the Catholic Church, as well as allegations regarding the Presbyterian Church and others. As part of the deliberations at another Committee, I heard about the abuse that some young gay men faced through so-called conversion therapy, done in the name of faith. That needs to be included in this as well. That was absolutely horrendous, and it was done across the board.

Church leaders need to take steps, and so do we. I want to see and talk to the victims. I want us to get to the next stage of this. I am glad that a meeting has been offered, but I hope that it is not a one-off, because those people deserve respect and for us to act with integrity. Above all else, they need to be believed.

Miss McAllister: I thank my party colleagues for tabling the motion, and the Committee for the Executive Office for all its work on clerical child abuse. I will start by highlighting a few points that we have all acknowledged. First, clerical child abuse did not happen just to children under the care of the state in institutions. It happened to families and young people who participated in church-based masses, Sunday services, Sunday schools, youth groups and outings. We have to understand that it did not happen just in institutions.

Secondly, it is not just a historical issue. The recent news about the Presbyterian Church, recent convictions of priests and further allegations made in the past few months underline the fact that the issue is ongoing. The issue is not unique to Northern Ireland or, indeed, to the Republic of Ireland; it is a worldwide issue, and we all have responsibility for it. It is the responsibility of not just the First Minister and the deputy First Minister, the Executive Office and MLAs but of all the Churches and faith-based organisations.

I was not an MLA when the Inquiry into Historical Institutional Abuse Bill worked its way through the Chamber, but it was one of the first pieces of legislation that I worked on in another role with the Alliance Party. I understand the reasons why clerical abuse, mother-and-baby homes and those in the foster system were not included in the legislation at the time. I know that their inclusion would have made its scope too wide. I appreciated the concerns at the time. We were happy to support it in that form back then, because it absolutely needed to happen.

Time has moved on, however: we are 14 or 15 years down the line. Whilst progress has been made in other areas, we still want to see the Executive Office bring forward the redress scheme for mother-and-baby homes and possibly for those who suffered abuse in other places, be that a Magdalene laundry or a workhouse.

I pay tribute to the work of Fiona Ryan. Fiona is doing an excellent job in her role as commissioner. Every time that we meet her, she demonstrates a broad depth of knowledge, particularly around clerical abuse. I hope that we can tap into that and her experience from her role in the Republic of Ireland in any work going forward.

I understand that all Ministers have a heavy workload, but sending an update only last night on a meeting that was requested a few months ago will not be acceptable to victims. Let us be honest about that: it will not be acceptable, and we should not excuse it. All the while that we are waiting, victims and survivors are being left behind.

I understand that it was a massive task for victims and survivors to come forward to share their stories. To do so often retraumatises people, but we must give them the opportunity to share their stories. To continue to sit on the ongoing work in the Department and with people in the sector is shameful. I agree with the comments made by the SDLP's Sinéad McLaughlin. We have, unfortunately, reached a point at which we cannot continue down this road. We are entering an election period and a new mandate, and we will lose time again. We have to deliver for people now.

I turn now to a few points around records that were made by the proposer of the amendment. Will the junior Ministers clarify whether contact was made with the diocese of Down and Connor and correspondence received from it about the records that have been kept at Milltown? The proposer of the amendment is right: they are kept in an old attic or basement somewhere where they could get water-damaged and destroyed. The diocese tells us that it is moving to a computer-based system, but the original records should absolutely be kept. I am glad that other Members are speaking up now about what has taken place at Milltown. I am grateful that the deputy First Minister and Pam, when she was the junior Minister, met me to discuss the issues. I want to hear how much forward movement there has been on the issue, because maintaining records is important.

At the heart of the issue, I think of the victims of clerical abuse. Regardless of whether the abuse happened 10, 20 or 40 years ago or just last year, every victim is entitled to the truth and an acknowledgement of what they have suffered.

Mr Gaston: Child sexual abuse is a crime of profound cruelty. Its effects do not fade with time. The trauma has destroyed and shaped lives, destroyed trust and left scars that many have carried silently for decades. Those who have come forward to speak about abuse suffered in faith-based and institutional settings have shown extraordinary courage. I join the proposers of the motion and the amendment in paying tribute to the survivors' reference group and others who have shared deeply personal experiences so that the truth might be known and justice pursued.

The House must face an uncomfortable truth, however: the issue should not be before us in 2026. It should have been addressed properly 14 years ago. In November 2012, Jim Allister tabled an amendment to the Inquiry into Historical Institutional Abuse Bill calling for action in relation to clerical abuse. Had that amendment been accepted — had the political will existed at that point — many victims might have been spared 14 years of further dither and delay.

Miss McAllister: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: I am happy to give way.

Miss McAllister: I recall amendments at that time. Will the MLA clarify whether the amendments encompassed all clerical abuse or were targeted at one institution, namely the Catholic Church?

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

Mr Gaston: My understanding is that it was all clerical abuse. Let us not confine it to one institution. Clerical abuse, in whatever setting it happened, was wrong. I will cover that later.

We now find ourselves in the position in which independent research commissioned by the Executive Office and delivered to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister in July 2025 has not been published seven months later, never mind acted on. That delay is indefensible.

I have a serious concern about the framework in which the issue is being examined. To examine abuse in only one institutional setting risks creating a distorted and incomplete picture. Abuse does not belong to one Church, one institution or one building. If our inquiries are limited to particular settings, many victims who were abused in settings outside the scope of those inquiries will simply be excluded. We need to learn from previous mistakes. If victims are abused in multiple settings, it is not good enough that only some of that abuse is recognised. The fact that that happens causes further profound mental distress.

We need to take a genuinely holistic approach. We need to look at the abuse, not the location in which it occurred. There is a compelling case for a properly designed prevalence survey so that we can understand how widespread abuse has been in Northern Ireland as a whole. Without one, we risk building policy on partial evidence and drawing conclusions from an incomplete understanding of the scale of the evil.

Before I conclude, I wish to place something on the record. There has been much legitimate criticism of the Executive Office today, but it would be entirely wrong not to note the efforts of someone who, with limited means, has genuinely sought to stand with victims and survivors. I refer to the Commissioner for Survivors of Institutional Childhood Abuse, Fiona Ryan. Ms Ryan has brought to that office not only professional competence but something far more important: compassion. Those who have dealt with her know that she listens and takes victims seriously. She has consistently sought to be a voice for people who, for decades, had no voice. She has pressed for action and, too often, has been met not with the support that she requires but with silence.

The uncomfortable truth is this: when setting up the commissioner's office, the Executive Office starved it of the resources that it needed to do its job properly. An office charged with representing some of the most vulnerable and traumatised people in our society was left underfunded, understaffed and, at times, effectively marginalised. If the First Minister and the deputy First Minister are serious about getting justice for survivors, they should begin not with another announcement but with something far more basic: properly funding and empowering the very office that they created to stand up for survivors.

I welcome the motion. It shines a spotlight on all clerical child abuse. I also commend Gerry for his amendment about protecting all records and making them readily available. We have found, in our vast array of evidence sessions on the mother-and-baby institutions, that, even in trusts, the conditions in which the medical records are being kept are not adequate or up to standard. I have major fears that, as we proceed and as people look for their medical records, those records either will not be found or will be in a condition that means that they are not recognisable. I commend the motion and the amendment.

Ms Reilly (Junior Minister, The Executive Office): I commend all Members who have spoken in the debate on the tone of their contributions. I acknowledge openly and from the heart the profound harm that has been caused by clerical child abuse. For many victims and survivors of child abuse in faith-based settings, that abuse was not only something that happened and ended in childhood but a deep violation that has followed them into adulthood and shaped every part of their life: their physical and mental health, their relationships, their faith, their identity and whether they feel that the world is safe. Too many lived for years — sometimes decades — without being believed, supported or protected by the very people and institutions that should have stepped in and acted. On behalf of all Ministers in the Executive Office and on the Executive, I express our deepest sympathy to everyone who was harmed.

What happened represents a grave failure by individuals, by institutions and by the systems that did not listen, did not act and did not protect children. For many survivors, even that acknowledgement has come far too late; I recognise that. We know that delay has only added to their pain, but let me say this: victims and survivors deserve the truth, justice and, above all, to be treated with dignity, respect and compassion in everything that we do.

I recognise the strength and courage that it takes to speak about such experiences. I have met many victims and survivors of clerical child abuse, and I know how much strength it takes to tell your story, often at great personal cost. As Ministers, we are committed to the work, to improving safeguarding and to making sure that victims and survivors are properly supported. What has stayed with me most from my meetings is not just the horror of what people endured but their dignity and determination and their deep desire of those people to ensure that what happened to them is neither denied nor repeated. Therefore, let me restate this: your voices matter, and your voices will continue to shape the work as we move forward. As Ministers, we take our responsibility to listen to your experiences very seriously.

Members will know only too well that the pain of the past still runs deep across our society. Many of you have supported victims and survivors over many years, and you will understand that no two experiences or needs are the same. You will also know that supporting victims and survivors has been at the heart of the work of the Executive Office over the past 15 years. During that time, Ministers and officials in that Department have worked to develop a range of programmes and supports for those harmed by our past, whether that was through violence during our conflict or through historical abuse of different kinds. A significant part of the Department's work and resources is now focused on dealing with historical harms, from the victims and survivors strategy to the Regional Trauma Network, the victims' payments scheme and the historical institutional abuse redress scheme. Work is also ongoing on a memorial plaque for victims of historical abuse, and the Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill is going through the Assembly.

Alongside all of that is the counselling and trauma-informed support provided by the Victims and Survivors Service. From that work, we have learned a great deal directly from victims and survivors and from those who supported them about what they need and how best those needs can be met. We know that it is impossible to meet everyone's needs in the same way or at the same time and, indeed, that not all victims want the same things. Each form of abuse is different; each person's experience is different; and there is no one-size-fits-all approach.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the junior Minister for giving way. I am not sure how long your speech is, so I want to get this in before you conclude.

I refer to the call in the motion for you to publish the reports, findings and recommendations, set out a time-bound response and state your position on a statutory public inquiry. I fully appreciate all the other work that the Department is involved in, but victims and survivors need to know whether those questions will be answered today.

Ms Reilly: Thank you for the intervention. As I work through my speech, I will touch on those issues.

As Ministers, we have to consider that there are many other circumstances that need to be taken into account when considering our response to historical abuse, such as where the abuse occurred, who was responsible at the time for preventing or detecting abuse and the wider role of the state. Those are important but necessary considerations, and they underline why careful, thoughtful decision-making matters so much.

I now turn to the recent work on clerical child abuse. As Members may know, in 2024, the interdepartmental working group (IDWG) commissioned three independent research projects. The terms of reference for each research project were developed in consultation with the reference groups of victims and survivors. Throughout that work, there was a clear need to move as quickly as possible while acting ethically and responsibly. Much time had already passed before the work even began, and, while there has been real urgency behind the process, we recognise that, for survivors, any delay can be deeply painful.

The first study focused on scoping records and information relevant to historical clerical abuse. Through a detailed survey of over 1,000 faith organisations, that work has helped to build a clear picture of what records and information exist relating to historical abuse, where that material is held and what condition it is in. The second study explored the experiences, expectations and needs of victims and survivors, and it is, by its very nature, a difficult report to read. It lays bare the devastating impact of abuse and the failures that enabled harm to continue.

The third study examined current safeguarding practices in the faith sector. That was forward-looking work, and it focused on what more can be done now and in the future to protect children and ensure that safeguarding is robust, transparent and consistently applied.

Once the research was completed, the interdepartmental working group considered the findings from each project, and, along with the victims and survivors, developed high-level recommendations — importantly, based solely on the evidence from that research. It was not the remit of the IDWG or the reference group to focus on wider contextual issues. It was always made clear to victims and survivors that consideration of wider issues, including financial and legal implications, was and remains for officials to include when providing policy advice to Ministers. The research was commissioned to build evidence, improve understanding and inform Ministers' decision-making; it was not specifically for publication. That objective remains central. However, if publication is considered in the future, it will be essential that the confidentiality and well-being of all participants are fully protected and that those involved are properly supported.

Throughout the process, engagement with victims and survivors of clerical abuse has been meaningful and sustained. Victims and survivors helped to shape the research. They were kept informed as work progressed. Engagement also took place beyond formal structures. The chair of the IDWG also maintained contact with survivors who chose not to participate in a formal reference group, recognising that people engage in different ways and at different times. That engagement was not superficial. Victims and survivors were at the heart of the work. I thank every person who contributed to the process by sharing their experiences, shaping the research and helping to bring the truth out into the open. Officials have continued to engage with victims and survivors. However, that was recently impacted on by legal action.

For my part, I first met the reference group of victims and survivors of clerical child abuse, along with the then junior Minister, in September 2024. I later attended part of a meeting in May 2025 at which draft recommendations were discussed, and I had an opportunity to restate our commitment to that important work. I do so again today. I heard first-hand the care, seriousness and thought that victims and survivors brought to the process. All those private engagements had a profound impact on me and only served to deepen my understanding of their experiences. All my subsequent engagements have been informed by those personal experiences. Victims and survivors remain central to our considerations. As has been mentioned, junior Minister Bunting and I will meet again with some victims and survivors of clerical child abuse in the coming weeks.

Members will appreciate that it is a complex and deeply sensitive issue, and it requires careful consideration, as has been mentioned by others. Since the reports were received, the First Minister and deputy First Minister have met officials and the then independent chair of the IDWG, Lisa Caldwell, to discuss the work of the IDWG and the views of victims and survivors.

Mr Dickson: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Reilly: I will.

Mr Dickson: You said that a lot of the work is now dependent on policy advice being received. Has that policy advice been received? If not, when will it be provided to you?

Ms Reilly: As I said, the issue requires careful consideration, and when the reports were received, we met officials, and we will meet them again. As we progress through that, we will inform Members and victims and survivors of how we are progressing with that.

Our discussions have highlighted the range of views and the strength of opinion among the victims and survivors of clerical abuse regarding the next steps. Ministers have also raised the issue of clerical abuse with the PSNI Chief Constable, and officials have met the PSNI to further discuss how it handles historic cases and the implications for taking forward any of the recommendations. Officials have also engaged with the Department of Health and colleagues in the South. That work is ongoing and will continue. Decisions are being carefully developed, informed by evidence, engagement and lived experience. We are exploring what can be done now and what actions require further information. Some early actions could include support for victims and survivors and work to improve current safeguarding. When any decisions are taken, we will ensure that the victims and survivors are the first to know.

Before I close, I will touch on the issue of unmarked graves, which was referenced quite a few times. The diocese has provided copies of the records to the Public Record Office (PRONI). Our officials are engaging with the Department for Communities and the diocese on that, but I take the point about where the physical records are. I am happy to go back to officials to get clarification on that and to provide that to Members.

It is important to say that this is not the responsibility of government alone. Faith organisations where abuse took place have a responsibility. They have to do more work, and they have to engage honestly with victims and survivors. They have to acknowledge their failings and make meaningful efforts to put things right. We welcome those who have begun that journey and the public statements that have been made by faith organisations, in which they have acknowledged their failings, and the efforts that some have made to redress the wrongs of the past. However, we strongly encourage others to do the same in order to support those victims and survivors who suffered under their watch.

Faith organisations have a moral duty to disclose what happened in the past and to make sure that any relevant information is provided to the appropriate authorities. Silence from them is not acceptable. There is no disputing the seriousness of what has happened or the long shadow that has been cast over the lives of victims and survivors. Words alone cannot undo the harm that was done. They must be matched by thoughtful, compassionate and effective action.

We know that victims and survivors might want to see the work progressing at a quicker pace, but it is extremely detailed and complex, and we will always give it the thorough attention that it deserves. It may not always be visible, but progress is being made. It is driven by a shared determination to establish the facts and to make sure that documents are preserved and information is disclosed to the relevant authorities, while making sure that those who were harmed are treated with the care, respect and seriousness that they deserve and that there is an enhanced focus on safeguarding.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Minister for taking an intervention. Minister, you mentioned an enhanced focus on safeguarding. Do you agree that safeguarding must be central for all settings that are involved in the care of children and young people and vulnerable adults, regardless of the institution or organisation?

Ms Reilly: Absolutely, I agree with the Member, as would everybody here. When you hand a child over to an organisation, whether that be a faith-based organisation, a school or a youth club, you expect them to be safe.

As Ministers, our focus is to keep victims and survivors at the heart of this work and to continue to engage and listen carefully in order to make sure that future decisions are grounded by evidence, shaped by lived experience and informed by a trauma-informed approach. That is our commitment to the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Gerry Carroll to make his winding-up speech on the amendment. Gerry, you have five minutes.

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank Members for their contributions to the debate and their support for the amendment and the motion. Members mentioned the need to be victim-centred and focused on survivors. There is, obviously, agreement on that across the House. Various people and groups have been mentioned, and I pay tribute to everybody who has been mentioned. Thankfully, there is support across the House on the matter.

Members spoke about the need for the Catholic Church in particular to be held to account, and I fully concur with that. Robbie Butler, however, said that it is not just about the Catholic Church, and I agree with that. He paid tribute to Margaret McGuckian, who is a constituent of mine, and I agree with him on that. Alongside others, she has done Trojan work. Religious institutions and other institutions more generally were also involved. I note the bravery of Nikella Holmes, who spoke out recently about the abuse that she suffered. She is seeking justice as well. In my view, that shines a light on smaller religious institutions, which evangelical institutions tend to be. I do not claim to be an expert, but I understand that there are quite a lot of family-run institutions. It is important and welcome that questions are being asked about such institutions and that a light is being shone on them.

He is not in the Chamber at the moment, but it is worth emphasising Mr McNulty's point that many victims and survivors who have engaged with the Executive Office and other Ministers are in poor health. Research shows that children who have been abused have a shorter lifespan due to the PTSD caused by that abuse and the physical effect that that has on them. I am aware that at least one survivor, who was abused in a Church of Ireland setting, has passed away.

I want to thank Tony Gribben, who has been in touch with me and, I presume, others, for his bravery in speaking out for himself and other people. I am going to read his words into the record, because it is important that victims and survivors' voices are heard. Like many others, he has said that dragging out decisions on the recommendations that were submitted by the interdepartmental working group adds further "pain, angst and strain". Those are his words, not mine. He is asking, as I am sure that others are, when the Executive Office can complete its own action plan and provide a calendar of events. I think that that is a reasonable request from him. He has also asked what meetings have taken place with TEO and the Finance Minister to make sure that a budget is available for a public inquiry, if that is the desired option.

I say, again, before anybody would get offended, that these are his words and not mine. He says that there is a "crisis of confidence" in the Executive Office about how slow things are moving. Those are quite moderate statements; people may not like them, but it is important that people's concerns are raised. It is a well-resourced Department — so much so that it can spend £8 million on agency staff. Tony Gribben also stated that requests to meet the First Minister and deputy First Minister have been ignored. That is glaring stuff that can be resolved quite easily.

In conclusion, the Member for North Belfast raised important points. I commend her for her work on her Bill, which, hopefully, will proceed through the House. I also commend her for speaking out on Milltown and other issues. In a similar vein to me, she asked what communication TEO has had with the diocese of Down and Connor. I thank the junior Minister for her remarks. She stated that some documents have been submitted to PRONI. It is important that that is communicated in the most sensitive and secure way. I would like to hear her expand on that.

I raised some other detailed points that I hope that officials can respond to for my benefit and that of constituents. I think that there is an overwhelming feeling that there should not be any secrecy. Has TEO done any mapping exercises on what documents may exist? I appreciate that those documents may be stored away secretly in attics, but I presume that there is some knowledge, somewhere, of what exists and where. If that is the case, maybe that can be communicated to Members in the safest possible way.

I commend the amendment to the House and thank Members for their contributions.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed, Gerry. Members, the Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm. I therefore propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The debate will continue after the question for urgent oral answer, when the next Member to be called will be Stewart Dickson to wind on the motion.

Mr Speaker: Question 1 has been withdrawn.

Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): The question relates more to an area that falls under the responsibility of the Minister for Infrastructure. Decarbonisation of transport, however, partly relates to my Department.

The Department for Infrastructure has advised that the provision and operation of electric vehicle charging infrastructure is fundamentally commercially driven, with some grants available from the British Government. Local councils have availed themselves of funding from the Department for Infrastructure and the EV network operator Weev. It is for councils to determine the most appropriate locations. Notwithstanding that, decarbonisation is one of the key priorities within my economic vision, and my Department has a key role to play in supporting the network connection.

In November, I published my decision on fairer grid connection costs, which will see electricity grid reinforcement charges spread fairly across consumers and remove a major barrier to investment, particularly in rural areas where the network is often weaker and reinforcement more likely to be required. That will help to support the roll-out of modern, reliable EV infrastructure across the region.

Sustainable tourism will play a key role in delivering decarbonisation. Tourism NI actively promotes sustainable tourism through business support programmes, resources and campaigns, focusing on helping operators to reduce environmental impact.

Mr Bradley: I thank the Minister for her answer. What specific commitments or agreements, if any, are in place with the Infrastructure Minister on the delivery of reliable, high-capacity EV chargers in rural tourism hotspots?

Dr Archibald: As I outlined, a lot of that sits more directly with the Infrastructure Minister's responsibilities for transport and the roll-out of EV infrastructure. However, there is also a key role for councils. A number have partnered with DFI to draw down funding to support the roll-out of EV infrastructure, which will be welcome. From a tourism and Tourism NI perspective, we will work to support councils in their tourism plans and are keen to engage on the type of infrastructure required so that we are joined up in our approaches across Departments to deliver the important elements of tourism and support sustainable tourism to deliver against the tourism vision and action plan.

Mr McGuigan: I met the Causeway Community Action Group recently, and I meet businesses in Ballycastle and groups in Ballintoy, on the issue of high traffic volume, particularly in peak season, and some of the issues associated with that. In response to Mr Bradley, Minister, you talked about working with councils. What work is your Department doing with Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council on the development of its Connected Causeway growth deal project, which is to alleviate some of those problems?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. The Connected Causeway project is really exciting and has significant potential. Tourism NI is working with the council to develop the business case for that project, which aims to address parking and traffic issues around tourism hotspots along the north coast. We will all be familiar with the Giant's Causeway and the rope bridge in particular, and the challenges across the summer months in that area. DFI's support will be important in finding the right solution for that. Officials in my Department have been engaging with officials in DFI to explore ways that DFI can support councils to develop proposals around that important growth deal project. DFI has committed to an internal review into traffic and parking issues to identify potential solutions that can be taken forward. I am committed to working in partnership in the development of that project and all the city and growth deal projects and will ensure that my officials continue to support councils to navigate any challenges that they face as projects progress.

Mr McGlone: Minister, your energy strategy commits to achieving 25% energy savings from buildings and industry by 2030, yet, as of October 2025, progress stands at just 4·8%. Do you accept that delivery is significantly off track? Will you describe what concrete actions your Department will take this year to attempt to close that gap?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his questions. One of the challenges that we face with meeting that particular target relates to data. It is about understanding the data and ensuring that we have the right data to measure what we are trying to achieve. That work is therefore progressing. Just yesterday, I published the Department's consultation response on support for low-carbon heat, which sets out its future actions on efficiency and supports for low-carbon heat. In the near future, we will undertake a consultation on a support scheme, with the desire being to have one in place next year.

Dr Archibald: I can confirm that the regulations providing for statutory paid leave in the event of miscarriage have been shared with the Committee for the Economy for scrutiny and will be laid in line with Assembly procedures at the appropriate time. That follows the publication of the official consultation response, which sets out the final policy position, as informed by the broad range of views received. It represents a really important milestone in delivering that much-needed entitlement.

It is essential that the regulations remain on schedule to ensure that entitlement to the new right will commence on 6 April 2026, thereby providing employers and employees with clear guidance. That right will be extended equally to women and their partners who experience a miscarriage, thus aligning with existing provisions for parents who suffer the loss of a child or a stillbirth and recognising the profound emotional impact that such losses can have. The overarching objective has been to establish a comprehensive and supportive framework for families as they navigate exceptionally difficult moments in their lives.

I encourage the Assembly to support the timely passage of the regulations without delay so that that important commitment to families can be met in full and so that the protections are available from April 2026.

Ms Egan: Thank you, Minister. That is really important for women and their families. Given the significant emotional and physical impact of miscarriage, will that paid leave be a day-1 entitlement?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I can confirm that, yes, it will be a day-1 entitlement.

Alongside those regulations, I am bringing forward other regulations that will ensure that statutory parental bereavement pay, including any claim made under the new entitlement for miscarriage, will be available from day 1 of employment for all workers and employees who meet the earnings threshold. To support that, I am introducing a new approach that will allow entitlement to be based on actual earnings and, where needed, unexpected earnings, using reasonable assumptions, so that individuals can demonstrate that they meet the lower earnings limit even at the earliest stages of employment, which is another key commitment, and one that the Assembly agreed in 2021.

My officials have been working really closely with HMRC to deliver the necessary system changes to support the new model and to ensure that those will be in place and fully operational from 6 April 2026. Importantly, the enhancement will benefit all those who are entitled to statutory parental bereavement pay, not solely those who qualify under the new miscarriage provisions. The regulations that enable that element are separate and will be laid, as I said, in accordance with the powers that are required to make them.

Ms Murphy: Minister, can you give details of when safe leave will be introduced?

Dr Archibald: Yes. I thank the Member for her question. I am fully committed to introducing legislation to operationalise safe leave during this mandate, as I have made clear on a number of occasions. I hope that access to paid safe leave from work will help victims and survivors of domestic abuse to access vital support. I am aware of the time that has now passed since the Domestic Abuse (Safe Leave) Bill was passed by the Assembly at the end of the previous mandate in 2022. Much of the delay in progressing that work has been down to the absence of an Executive during part of that period. I am, however, committed to putting the legislation in place, and my Department is working hard to deliver on that objective.

Ms McLaughlin: Minister, the introduction of paid carer's leave would be a really meaningful step towards more inclusive and supportive workplaces. When will you bring a fully formed draft 'good jobs' Bill to the Executive, and when can we expect it to be brought to the House?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I agree with her about the introduction of carer's leave. There is broad support across the Assembly for that, and it is a really important for the many people out there who provide really important care for loved ones.

As I indicated at Committee last week, the drafting of the 'good jobs' Bill is well advanced. We are working to make sure that it is introduced in the Assembly at the earliest opportunity. As we indicated last week, we are hopeful that that will be before the end of March.

Dr Archibald: The Executive's Programme for Government recognises that historical underfunding of water and waste water infrastructure has been a persistent challenge for economic development in the North. Water infrastructure is a critical enabler of industrial development through indigenous business growth and foreign direct investment. Invest NI maintains a strong working relationship with NI Water to understand network constraints and the potential for coordinated strategic investment and partnership aligned with its regional property programme. That 10-year programme represents a new approach to the provision of industrial land and property that will act as a key enabler to achieving a more regionally balanced economy. It will bring forward proposals that aim to refurbish and repurpose existing industrial building stock.

I recently met the Minister for Infrastructure and NI Water officials to receive a briefing on a pathfinder project in Newry, where investment by a business in on-site waste water treatment technology is reducing pollution and freeing up capacity for development in the area. I am open to exploring how we can incentivise larger businesses to make similar investments, recognising the very significant budgetary constraints that we face.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you, Minister. Newtownards is now closed to new connections and the development of businesses. You talked about larger industries, but what about the small to medium-sized enterprises that are closing down and having to let their people become unemployed or are having to close down other businesses to take their connections? What support is going to be available for those small to medium-sized enterprises?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I know that she has been engaged in correspondence with the Department for Infrastructure about businesses in Newtownards. I am not over the detail of those particular circumstances, but the management of the waste water network more generally remains an operational matter for NI Water. I understand that those businesses have been advised to continue to engage on the issue.

The broader point that the Member makes is an important one, and the Infrastructure Minister has clearly put significant emphasis on that issue. She has worked very closely with NI Water to try to make the best use of the budget available to free up capacity wherever possible, and to try to make investments in areas in which there is the potential to have a significant impact.

As Economy Minister, I take a real interest in understanding where there may be challenges. I work closely with Invest NI, which has a good working relationship with NI Water when it comes to trying to work through some of those issues. I assure the Member that the issue that she raised is up there in my list of priorities and that I am trying to find solutions. That is why we have had that engagement with the Department for Infrastructure, the Minister for Infrastructure and NI Water. We are looking for ways in which we can apply innovative solutions to those issues.

Mr Boylan: Minister, what is Invest NI's role in improving access to derelict properties?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for the question. Although Invest NI does not have a direct role when it comes to derelict properties, its property assistance scheme offers financial support to eligible customers to enable them to develop new property solutions that align with any plans that they have for growth.

The regional property strategy recognises that a significant challenge facing new industrial development continues to be that limited capacity that I have been discussing with Ms Armstrong in relation to water and the waste water network. As I have emphasised, Invest has a strong, good, constructive working relationship with NI Water, particularly in relation to its own property holdings. There is ongoing engagement to understand the nature of the current constraints and to explore whether there are mitigations or other ways to overcome those. Invest is also open to considering whether the potential exists for coordinated strategic investment.

Mr Buckley: The Member for Strangford is absolutely right to point out the blocker that waste water infrastructure causes to local business development. It is not the only blocker. With that in mind, what discussions has the Minister had with her Sinn Féin counterpart in the Department for Infrastructure about a totally inept planning service that has business applications, both local and international, lingering for years? Surely it is not too much to ask that two Sinn Féin Ministers work together to sort the issue out?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. I am sure that he expects not only Sinn Féin Ministers but all Ministers in the Executive to work collectively to address some of the many issues that we face.

I have had engagement on planning with my colleagues John O'Dowd, when he was Infrastructure Minister, and Liz. The Member, who is on the Infrastructure Committee, will be familiar with the planning improvement programme that is in place. Good progress is being made on some of the issues.

I agree that there are significant challenges. From experience in my constituency I know that businesses have faced delays in planning, which can be very frustrating. A lot of that comes down to the resource, not just in the planning service itself in DFI, but across statutory consultees. Good work is being done. Could more be done? Absolutely, but the emphasis that the Infrastructure Minister has put on it is clear to see. There has been progress, there have been improvements, and we want to see that continue to improve.

Ms D Armstrong: The question references derelict properties: what discussions has the Minister had one step further along, when dereliction becomes dilapidation? What engagement has the Minister had with the AERA Minister on the Dilapidation Bill, which affects retail and commercial properties in towns and villages?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. That is one of the issues that impact across all of our constituencies. The Executive have paid attention to it with the Bill that the AERA Minister is taking through. The issue is not just for the AERA Minister and me, given my interests from the Department for the Economy perspective. The Finance Minister is also considering it in terms of the rate relief for vacant properties. There is an opportunity there to look at how we can support regeneration. That would also need to have engagement from the Department for Communities to ensure that there is that joined-up approach to making sure that we tackle the problem and do not exacerbate it by anything that is being done to try to fix it. There is a real requirement for a cross-departmental approach.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, with the greatest respect, there seems to be a slight mismatch between what you are saying about the waste water system and the scale of the concern among businesses and people who want to invest here. You said in response to Ms Armstrong's initial question that you take an interest in the waste water system: Minister, I take an interest in Premier League football. You said that there may be a challenge, but every business group that I speak to tells me — they do not just mention it — that the lack of waste water capacity is a huge, profound concern, be it in new houses, factories, shops or whatever.

Minister, please tell me that you are urging your Executive colleagues to invest in our waste water capacity. If you, as Economy Minister, are not hearing that from investors and other businesses, either you are not listening or you genuinely have an issue with your hearing.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. He is being a little facetious. I am not prone to hyperbole, as some in the Chamber may be, but I assure the Member and everybody else that I am listening to the business community. I hear their concerns; I understand their concerns; and I am working hard with my Executive colleagues to make progress on them.

Engagement on waste water infrastructure in particular is reflected in our Programme for Government because of the emphasis and priority that the Executive put on it. Everybody in the Chamber is familiar with the challenges that we face with the Budget, but the Infrastructure Minister has consistently made the case for more investment in waste water infrastructure. Everybody around the Executive table recognises the need for that and has supported it, and the Finance Minister has consistently made allocations. If we had more money to put towards it, we would absolutely do so, but we are working to address a number of priorities. We recognise the real significance of addressing the challenges in respect of waste water infrastructure.

Dr Archibald: I plan to publish a one-year update in the coming weeks that will show the significant progress that has been made on the social enterprise action plan. Of the 14 actions, five have been fully completed, and work is ongoing on the remaining nine. Social enterprise champions are in place in every council and in Invest NI and InterTradeIreland. They are working to support social enterprises on the ground as they navigate the supports in place for them.

Engagement events have been held to increase the understanding of social enterprises in the public sector. Those events have created a deeper awareness of social enterprises and their relevance for economic policy while highlighting the range of commissioning options to better support the sector.

A support pathway has been produced that shows the five stages of business development of social enterprises and the supports available at each stage. It sets out for the first time a clear road map to help social enterprises navigate support more easily and effectively. Just this morning, I launched a new £30,000 fund and invited proposals to support the growth and development of cooperatives across the North.

Mr Baker: I thank the Minister for her answer. What steps are being taken to promote employee ownership models as a means of supporting good jobs and long-term economic resilience?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for that question. The Department actively promotes employee ownership as a way of delivering good jobs and strengthening our local economy. I have provided £100,000 to Employee Ownership Ireland to raise awareness of the employee ownership trust model and to support businesses that are exploring a transition to that model as part of their succession planning.

Early results highlight the benefits for employees that are generated by the model. For example, S&W Wholesale in Newry has given out over £1 million in staff bonuses since becoming employee-owned. There are really good examples of businesses that have taken up the model to the benefit of the business and its workforce.

Mr Honeyford: Does the Minister accept that the new barriers that will go up in April with the end of the Shared Prosperity Fund and its successor's capital/revenue split will directly undermine the social enterprise action plan? What action can she take to help organisations such as Stepping Stones in Lagan Valley that provide community and employment support?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for that important question. Everybody in the Chamber is concerned about the impact of the funding cuts as a result of the end of the Shared Prosperity Fund. The local growth fund does not meet the funding need, and the capital/resource split is really problematic and shows that Ministers in London are clearly not listening to the needs of our communities. The programme was clearly not designed with our interests in mind. Thousands of people will lose out as a result.

I have been working with my Executive colleagues to make our case. The Finance Minister has been leading on it directly with Treasury and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG). We have made the case to the Secretary of State and urged him to support us in making the case to the British Government. There will be a significant impact on the economic inactivity work that is supported by the fund and through Go Succeed, which provides entrepreneurship support.
We are working to address those challenges but are still making the case that the funding shortfall in resource needs to be met and the split between capital and resource needs to be fixed.

Dr Archibald: We want to make sure that all our young people are supported to achieve their potential. That will require work across a number of Departments, including my Department, the Department for Communities, which leads on employability, and the Department of Education.

My Department runs a range of programmes aimed at supporting young people to thrive in training or employment. They include important entry-level programmes such as Skills for Life and Work and traineeships, both of which provide clear pathways into employment, particularly for young people who face additional barriers. My ApprenticeshipsNI programme remains a flagship programme, opening up opportunities for people of all ages, including through our pre-apprenticeship academies. Alongside that, work continues to enhance my Department’s support and provision for school leavers and others with special educational needs and disabilities.

Funding remains a significant challenge. The sustained reduction in support following the loss of the European social fund (ESF) and now the transition from the Shared Prosperity Fund to the local growth fund has had a considerable impact. It is especially acute for our partners in the community and voluntary sector, who deliver so much vital support in this area.

Mr Harvey: I thank the Minister for her answer. How will she ensure that the various strategies and action plans being implemented by her Department and the bodies involved, such as the labour market partnerships (LMPs) and the colleges, will act as one to reduce duplication and ensure that young people do not fall through the cracks?

Dr Archibald: That is an important point. A lot of work goes on in that area. Given the constrained budget, we have to make sure that we reduce duplication and that there is as much synergy as possible if we are to maximise delivery and impact. There is a lot of synergy, I guess, across the policy intent of some of the initiatives that the Member mentioned.

One thing that my Department is doing on the local economic partnership work is making sure that it lines up with the LMPs, which are supported by the Department for Communities, to make sure that there is no duplication and that both of those schemes involve, for example, our local colleges. That is to make sure that the work is aligned as much as possible. I think that all my Executive colleagues, including the Communities Minister, would support that.

Mr Delargy: I thank the Minister for her work in this area, about which she is passionate. Will the Minister provide an update on the skills action plan?

Dr Archibald: As I have said many times, skills underpin everything that we are trying to achieve and all of the priorities of the economic vision. We have created a skills fund, investing in a range of training interventions that are focused on our growth sectors and on transferable transversal skills.

I launched the skills action plan on 16 October at the Chamber of Commerce's Future Workforce Summit. In line with the economic vision, I have worked closely with officials to develop a forward-looking framework that will equip our people with the skills that are required to meet our current demands and the future ambitions of our economy.

The action plan includes actions on young people, such as a commitment to work with the Department of Education to support young people to gain the skills that they need to be successful, introducing the new Skills for Life and Work provision for young people who leave school with low or no qualifications and embedding a new youth training programme — traineeships — that delivers for industry and young people.

Mr Mathison: Has the Minister examined any models, such as that of Skillnet Ireland, whereby employers directly shape the training delivered through colleges, and will she outline what plans she has to strengthen those links between business and education here?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. It is important that we take learning and good practice from elsewhere and utilise that. Yes, we have looked at Skillnet Ireland. I have made a commitment to the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry that I will look at a workforce development agency to make sure that we have a join-up between businesses and the development of the types of skills and courses that are needed to support them.

Across our sectoral action plans, there are sectoral engagements to make sure that the types of programmes and initiatives that are being put in place to support the seven priority sectors meet the needs of the businesses and industry within them. That work continues, but we can certainly do more to make sure that we are as joined up as possible.

Mr Speaker: We will move on to topical questions.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I agree with her broad emphasis on the importance of our hospitality sector in supporting our tourism offering in particular. I have had significant engagement with the sector, including as recently as a fortnight ago, on the increasing pressures that it faces. Most of those are not within our control. Some are the result of decisions that have been taken by the British Government. Of course, the increasing pressure from rates comes on the back of all that and the challenging years throughout the pandemic.

I continue to engage with the sector. As I said, along with the Finance Minister, I recently met Hospitality Ulster and the Food to Go Association to discuss their proposal for a VAT pilot scheme, given the North/South differential and the negative impact of a potential increase in that over coming months. Out of that meeting, we agreed to seek a meeting with Treasury to discuss the proposal for a reduced VAT pilot scheme. It is important that we continue the engagement with the hospitality sector over coming weeks. The Finance Minister was clear yesterday that there is an opportunity to continue to engage with Land and Property Services (LPS) for those who are concerned about their revaluation. I encourage any business that is in that position to do so.

Ms McLaughlin: Minister, previously, you said:

In that light, will you now call on your party colleague the Finance Minister to reverse the rates revaluation before more hospitality businesses hit the wall? Rates are within the purview of the Executive and your party colleague. Revaluation has not been imposed upon him by the British Government. Rates are his job, his role and his decision. You, as the Economy Minister, should be really concerned, because I genuinely am concerned for those businesses in each and every town across Northern Ireland.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. It is important to remember that the rates pressure comes on the back of many other pressures. We need to continue to engage with the sector on it. The Member and anybody who listened to the Finance Minister yesterday will be familiar with the reasoning behind the revaluations. It is to ensure that there is fairness in our rates system and that it keeps up to speed. One of the asks of the business community was that revaluations take place more regularly. As I said, I encourage all businesses that may have concerns to continue to engage with LPS and the Department of Finance over the coming weeks, because, as the Finance Minister made clear yesterday, there are a number of opportunities to do so.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. There has been considerable engagement at official level. Since Christmas, I have met the Minister of Education to discuss a number of areas in which we have a joint interest, of which the curriculum review is one. It is something in which I take a significant interest, because there is crossover with the 14-19 sector. The changes being proposed by the Department of Education include proposals to raise the mandatory age of education to 18. Again, that is something in which my Department has a particular interest, and we want to make sure that there are opportunities for young people, regardless of what pathway they want to pursue. We need to have close, joined-up working in order to make sure that that happens.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for her answer and for the ongoing engagement. She will know that there has long been an issue in our education system with parity of esteem between vocational and academic pathways. What is being done, and what concrete actions are being taken, particularly at this time of significant change to our curriculum and to qualifications, to progress the independent review of education recommendations on ensuring that vocational pathways are available to all learners from the age of 14?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. Ensuring parity between vocational and academic pathways is something that I am supportive of across primary and secondary education but particularly into third-level education, for which I have a responsibility. I have previously outlined some of the types of initiatives that are already in place to support our young people through vocational pathways, such as traineeships. Such initiatives ensure that there are different pathways and approaches for young people, regardless of what it is that they want to pursue. That is work that my Department continues to develop. We are also working closely with the Department of Education on the 14-19 group, and we will continue to engage on the elements to which the Member referred — the independent review of education and the curriculum review — to make sure that interests from a further education perspective are properly reflected.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. I am flicking through my papers to try to find my notes. Following yesterday's publication of the Department's consultation response, we indicated that, over the coming months, further work will be done on developing proposals for a support scheme, with the intent being to consult on such a scheme in the near future. The intention is to have a support scheme in place in 2027.

Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for her answer. Are green skills initiatives being fast-tracked in order to ensure that our local workforce is qualified to install low-carbon technologies, which, ultimately, the Department will be subsidising?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. We published the green skills action plan a few months ago. Its purpose is to ensure that we have a skilled pipeline of people coming through who are able to take forward the important policy initiatives that we are trying to achieve. It is also an indication of our ambition to grow our green economy. There are significant opportunities there for us, and we want to make sure that we are maximising our natural resources. Yes, an emphasis is therefore being placed on greens skills to make sure that we can support the work that is being undertaken.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for that question. The Bill will introduce several key measures to support working families in balancing employment and caring responsibilities. Flexible working rights from day 1 will offer families greater choice in how to manage work and home life. The Bill will provide for up to five days of unpaid carer's leave annually to support employees who care for dependents with long-term needs. It includes rights to leave and pay when a baby requires neonatal care, which will ensure that parents can focus on their family during those challenging periods. Enhanced redundancy protection for pregnant employees and those returning from family leave will strengthen job security and prevent disadvantage for new and expectant parents. Paternity leave from the first day of employment will enable fathers and partners to be more involved in the early weeks and months after a child's birth or adoption. Collectively, those reforms will help families to meet the demands of modern life, support well-being and allow parents and carers to remain in the workforce, which, I think, we all support.

Miss Hargey: Thank you very much, Minister. The trade union movement has said that the Bill is one of the most advanced and radical pieces of legislation on these islands. Will you outline your engagement with the trade unions here and their views on your proposals?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for that question. Since the launch of the economic vision, back when Minister Murphy was in place, there has been extensive and regular engagement between the Department and trade unions, including direct engagement through the Labour Relations Agency engagement forum. A number of trade unions and business organisations are represented on that forum. I have engaged with trade unions and business organisations, and I look forward to continuing to do so as we get the Executive's agreement on introducing the Bill to the Assembly. My next engagement with trade unions will be with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions next month.

Dr Archibald: That particular engagement was about general pressures. Representatives specifically raised the challenge of the differential in VAT rates across the island. The fact that VAT will be reduced in the South in the summer means that businesses across the North, particularly those in border areas, will face a challenge in remaining competitive. As I said in answer to a previous question, the Finance Minister and I committed at that meeting to seek a meeting with Treasury to try to convince it of the benefits of a pilot on reduced VAT for the hospitality sector.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Minister for her answer. I am sure that the Minister is aware that Colin Neill recently referred to the proposed rise in non-domestic rates as:

Does the Minister accept that the proposed increases in non-domestic rates will be devastating for the tourism and hospitality sector?

Dr Archibald: As I reflected in my previous answer, I recognise the challenges for and pressures on the sector. A number of different pressures have piled up for it. I commit to continuing to engage so that I understand those challenges and to looking at how we can support the sector. One such way is to try to make progress on the VAT issue. The Finance Minister, alongside his work on Reval2026, is consulting on small business rate relief options. That is an opportunity to look at how we support sectors and small businesses more generally.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for that question. I intend to bring forward eight Bills over the course of the mandate, and that is compared with, I think, one piece of primary legislation that my Department has brought forward since it was established in 2016. It is an ambitious programme of work, especially given that we have a shortened mandate.

It is important that we continue to press ahead to deliver on the commitments that we have made. There are five Bills scheduled for introduction this year: the 'good jobs' Bill; the RHI (Closure of Non-Domestic Scheme) Bill; the Utility Regulator (support for decarbonisation) Bill; the onshore petroleum Bill; and the renewable electricity price guarantee Bill. The RHI closure Bill is already progressing, and I will soon seek Executive approval to introduce the three remaining Bills. Next year, I intend to bring forward two further Bills: the offshore renewable energy installations Bill and the credit union Bill.

Mr Speaker: I announced this morning that a statement had been made to the public as opposed to the House, and I indicated that I would accept a question for urgent oral answer if one came in. One such question came in from Peter Martin to the Minister for Infrastructure.

The House is here to scrutinise Ministers, who are appointed by the House, and their Departments. I do not care what ilk or what political party those Ministers represent: as Speaker of the House, I will ensure that it has a scrutiny capacity. If Ministers wish to make announcements outside the House — they should not do that — I will make sure that they come to the House.

Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): The introduction of graduated driver licensing was debated and agreed by the Assembly as part of the passage of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill in 2016. The Bill received Royal Assent in May 2016 and became the Road Traffic (Amendment) Act (NI) 2016. There has been no departure in policy direction since the Act received Royal Assent. Today, I announced the pathway to the introduction of GDL, which is the settled will of the Assembly.

Mr Martin: Minister, this morning you announced what you called the biggest ever change to driver tests and licensing, and I cautiously welcomed that on the BBC's 'The Nolan Show', as I believe that anything that reduces road deaths is helpful.

Minister, you failed to sight the Committee on any of the proposals that you brought to the media today. You certainly did not mention them to me, as Committee Chair, or to the Deputy Chair. You did not even bring the proposals to this place. That is appalling, and it smacks of not caring about scrutiny. Is what you have done today to avoid scrutiny of the policy, which is generic, or is it that you just do not care to follow the procedures?

Ms Kimmins: Absolutely not. I appeared before the Infrastructure Committee on 25 June last year. I appreciate that that was before the Member's time as Chair. At that time, I set out my priorities and legislative programme and informed the Committee that I was introducing graduated driving licences and that that would require statutory rules (SRs). It is a matter of record that I wish to see GDL introduced as soon as possible and that my Department has been progressing the operational planning and subordinate legislation changes that are required before GDL can be implemented. I have also responded to a number of questions for written answer about GDL from MLAs, including Committee members, and, in each of those answers, I made it clear that I would shortly announce the implementation date of GDL, which I did today.

Of course, the Infrastructure Committee has an important role in the scrutiny of the draft subordinate legislation that is required to underpin the primary provisions, and I look forward to engagement on that draft legislation, which, I expect, will be sent to the Infrastructure Committee for scrutiny in February 2026. I understand that the scrutiny of the subordinate legislation was also included in the Department's draft forward work plan, which was shared with the Committee.

Mr McHugh: I thank the Minister for this important development in driver licensing, which was passed by the Assembly in 2016. Does the Minister agree that, given the high proportion of young people aged 17 to 23 impacted by road collisions, including those who tragically lose their lives on our roads, it is vital that we do all that we can to ensure that they can drive safely?

Ms Kimmins: Yes, absolutely. That is the important point coming out of the step in the progress around graduated driver licensing. The fundamental goal of learning to drive and the licensing process should be to create drivers and motorcyclists who are safe and not just technically competent by the time they are permitted to drive or ride unsupervised. The introduction of GDL plans to achieve that through a structured approach to learning to drive, including the completion of a programme of training and a logbook. It will better prepare drivers for the driving test and the initial post-driving test period by helping learners to understand how human factors such as their attitude, personality, behaviour and feelings affect their driving style.

On the point about the age group and how young people have been disproportionately represented in the number of fatalities as a result of road traffic collisions, I was contacted this morning by a parent whose young boy will be learning to drive soon, and he has lost three of his friends in road traffic collisions. Therefore, for me, it is extremely important, and we should not lose sight of how important the step forward is.

Mr McMurray: Minister, I agree with the sentiment of graduated driving licences and Northern Ireland being the first to introduce the measure and legislation. Can you elaborate on the evidence for the legislation and/or best practice from around the world that was used to inform the GDL measures being introduced?

Ms Kimmins: Yes, absolutely. Global evidence has been looked at. Research carried out by the Transport Research Laboratory shows that GDL systems reduce collisions and fatalities involving young people by around 19% to 21%. Australia, Canada, Norway, Sweden, Finland and parts of the US have seen significant improvements in road safety after adopting GDL. Indeed, we have some similarities to the GDL programme that is in place in the South of Ireland. It is a really positive step forward and shows how serious we are about improving road safety, particularly for our younger drivers, who are involved in quite a high number of fatal road collisions.

Mr Stewart: Like others, I welcome the change and welcome anything that will save lives on our roads. However, like the Speaker and the Chair of the Infrastructure Committee, I am deeply concerned about the way that it has been handled. It is a slight on the scrutiny of our Committee, which works in a collegial way with you and your Department to get the best outcomes in the Department for Infrastructure. It is also a slight on the House.

Notwithstanding that, will you confirm what recent consultation you and your Department have carried out, particularly with driving instructors? What recent engagement have they had with you? When can we start to see some of the roll-out of the exemptions that may be in place for young people who will be going through the scheme?

Ms Kimmins: The introduction of GDL has been a long journey and has been subject to two public consultations during that time. As I have stated previously, it was first introduced in 2016 when it was legislated for in the Assembly. The development of the legislative framework for GDL was the subject of extensive consultation prior to that, in 2011. The outcome of that consultation informed the drafting of the Assembly Bill. The passage of the Bill entailed a series of Assembly debates, as well as close engagement with the departmental scrutiny Committee to explain the rationale and facilitate the Committee's clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill. The necessary subordinate legislation was also consulted on in 2017.

As I mentioned, in my appearance at the Committee in June 2025, I confirmed my commitment to implementing GDL as soon as was practicable. It is important to say that the passage of time is largely beyond our control. It has taken some time to develop it, as we have had two Assembly collapses in that period, as well as COVID and other issues that took priority. The legislation has been in place for some time, and I am just moving on to the next stage of implementation.

Mr McNulty: Minister, with storm Chandra wreaking havoc across the North, I send my support to your Department's Roads Service, Water Service, Translink teams and the emergency and health workers, who are all desperately trying to manage the mayhem. I hope that everyone can stay safe.

I warmly welcome any legislation that will help to save lives on our roads. Unlike storm Chandra, the legislation did not drop out of the sky, with primary legislation having been passed in the House in 2016. I do not put the fault at your door, Minister, but can you explain why there has been such a delay in bringing forward the legislation? Lives have been potentially lost as a result of the delays.

Ms Kimmins: I just explained to Mr Stewart the reasons for some of the delays. As has been stated, this is a huge reform of driver licensing and testing, so significant work was required to bring it to this point. The reform was initiated by my predecessor, John O'Dowd, on the back of the primary legislation, and I have now set the launch date, but there are stages to go through with the Committee on the subordinate legislation. We are trying to get it in place as quickly as possible. The evidence is there: we know that this is a positive step forward that will save lives. The positive feedback that we have received from parents and organisations, as well as from Road Safe NI, is that it is a positive step. It shows what we can do as an Assembly.

Mr Boylan: I thank the Minister for her update. Many collisions involving young people between the ages of 17 and 23 occur at night-time, with young passengers in the cars. What assurances can the Minister give to people in rural communities that they have been considered in implementing the passenger restrictions?

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for his question. He cited some of the statistics on fatalities that show how young people are impacted. We were particularly cognisant of the impact on rural communities, where people are more reliant on access to a private car.

I feel that the impact on rural communities will be positive, as evidenced by existing research that shows that GDL schemes reduce collisions involving young people. In 2024, 71% of the people killed or seriously injured in collisions involving a driver aged 17 to 23 were killed or injured on rural roads. Rural communities are severely affected by tragic loss and other consequences associated with serious road traffic collisions. We recognise the unique challenges that many rural drivers face. The system has been designed to minimise inconvenience while prioritising safety.

Mr Dunne: I welcome any efforts to improve road safety. There are, however, important questions around accountability. It seems that, at the moment, we hear from the Minister only via the airwaves, as we did this morning. There is a fundamental lack of accountability to the House. Our roads hit crisis point, and there is no accountability. There is flooding chaos but no accountability. There is little or no action to tackle our waste water crisis, and there is no accountability. We now have the most fundamental changes to licensing in 70 years, and the Minister has had to be called to the Assembly by the Speaker.

Minister, what way is that to treat the Assembly and the public, with such an historic change being pushed through without any meaningful engagement with the Chamber? How can you claim that the rationale and evidence base will have the desired outcomes in improving road safety?

Ms Kimmins: The Member will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with those statements, which are highly political. I have outlined exactly how the decision came to pass. The decision was taken by the Assembly prior to my time in the post. It has been legislated for, and the timeline has been explicitly outlined for Members. The fact that the Committee has already asked me questions on the matter and that the Member was on the Committee when I outlined my plans for GDL tells me that his statements are purely political. The change is positive and should be seen as such.

In relation to my accountability to the Assembly, I am regularly in front of the Assembly and the Committee. I am due to go back to the Committee in the coming weeks, and I will be back in the Chamber for Question Time. I am always willing to answer questions from Members and the public on any of the issues that have been outlined.

Mr McReynolds: In the past five years, tragically, nine pedestrians and two cyclists have been killed in collisions with HGVs. How will today's measures reduce deaths on our roads and protect the most vulnerable road users?

Ms Kimmins: The issue of HGVs is separate from what we are looking at here. This is about improving safety for new, younger drivers, given the stats around them.

As the Member is aware, my Department is looking at options to improve road safety across the board. We look at that all the time. We are looking at the importance of active travel delivery in order to ensure that pedestrians and cyclists can commute and use those facilities safely. We are looking at a range of things, including safety around HGVs on our roads. That forms the bigger picture and is a separate area of work. However, this will also make a significant improvement.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Minister for her proposals around GDL. As a mummy of a 17-year-old girl, I fully understand how keen and eager young people are to get out on our roads, but I also understand the impact on a family of the loss of a loved one on our roads. Does the Minister agree that, as parents, we will have a key role in ensuring that young people understand the reasons for the measures and that, when they start driving, they abide by them? The chair of the charity Road Safe NI, Davy Jackson, outlined this morning that it is really important that we, as parents, understand the measures and explain them to our young people to make sure that they are accountable and that they abide by them.

Ms Kimmins: Yes, absolutely. The fundamental objective of graduated driver licensing is to protect lives, and we need to bring people with us. Therefore, we have to help people, particularly young people, understand what the measures are and why they are in place. You cannot replace a life. Ensuring that young and new drivers are experienced enough on the roads is crucial, and this will help to do that. As parents and as citizens, we all have a role to play in sharing the information and helping people to understand the rationale for the change. There is nothing that can argue with the fact that no one wants to get the knock on the door to say that their child or someone close to them has been killed in a road traffic collision. That is the ultimate way that we can help people to understand the importance of the measures and why new and young drivers should abide by them.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for her ongoing commitment to road safety, and, as others have done, I welcome any measures to help reduce loss of life on the roads. Those representing a rural constituency such as mine have seen too much of that over the years.

Minister, given the lack of opportunity for scrutiny, I will ask you a bit about the detail of the restriction on night-time driving for under-24s. Has any appraisal been carried out of the economic impact of that? A lot of young people work in the hospitality sector or as nurses or volunteer, for example, with the RNLI. What would not enabling them to be on the roads overnight mean for them?

Ms Kimmins: That is not one of the restrictions. The restriction is around how many passengers they can carry. We have seen that a high number of collisions occur at night-time when there may be a group of young people in a car and the driver can be easily distracted. The evidence suggests that that is one way of improving safety. For six months post test, new drivers aged 17 to 23 can take only one passenger aged between 14 and 20. They can have other passengers who are over 21 and who have held a full driving licence for at least three years or who are immediate family members. So, there are some exceptions. I am glad to have had the opportunity to clarify that, because we recognise that many young drivers rely on a private car, particularly if they work in hospitality, the health service or whatever it may be. It is not about taking them off the roads at certain times but about restricting who they can take with them.

Mr McAleer: I welcome the measures. Like many Members, I have young drivers from our house who are out on the roads, and I do not sleep well at night until they are safe at home. I welcome any measures that are put in place to increase driving experience to make it safer for them. Minister, what changes will your proposals mean for R-drivers, particularly in relation to speed limits and motorways?

Ms Kimmins: We will be increasing the speed limit for R-drivers on motorways. That has been considered for some time, given the related safety aspects. It allows them to build up their experience at a more appropriate speed on motorways. It is about giving people the opportunity, post testing and in a natural environment, to gain better skills in a lower-risk situation so that drivers can gain experience and be more aware of the risks that can occur. The key part for me is that, in the long term, we will have safer drivers on our roads throughout their driving career, for want of a better word.

Mr K Buchanan: Minister, I welcome any changes to save lives, and, no doubt, this is a positive move. We learned about it on 'Good Morning Ulster'. Having been a member of the Infrastructure Committee in the past, I think that it would be good to give the Committee its place.

This is a good-news story, but it is not going to improve the condition of our roads. I am meeting people on the wrong side of the road every day of the week. This good-news story will not hide the bad-news story. When you are you going to fix the roads properly?

Ms Kimmins: I do not think that anyone is saying that graduated driver licensing will solve all the problems in DFI. Members are very aware of the significant pressure that the Department is under. Just look at what the Department is dealing with today. We are continually looking at how we can secure more investment to deal with the issues on our roads. We have seen a significant deterioration in their condition, particularly over the past few weeks, following the very cold weather in December and this month, which has naturally caused the roads to deteriorate. That is not something that has started to happen in 2026. It happens every single year. Significant work is under way to deal with the issues as best we can, and I will continually try to get more money to do that. The scale, however, is huge, and our staff are working extremely hard.

The roads maintenance strategy looks at how, in the longer term, we can make our road network more resilient so that we are not having to deal with this situation year in, year out. I am committed to finding ways in which to improve the network to strengthen our roads so that we are not dealing with potholes everywhere all the time and so that we can fix longer stretches of road. That work is ongoing. The weather that we have seen over the past 12 to 24 hours will have a further impact, and our teams will be out on the ground as normal dealing with the aftermath in the coming days and weeks.

Mr Durkan: I welcome the Minister's announcement today, although I do understand why some Committee members might have concerns that it was not flagged to them first. As the Minister said, the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill was subject to extensive consultation and, indeed, significant amendment as it went through the Assembly. If I recall correctly, however, and it has been a long time, the same legislation — now the Road Traffic (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2016 — also reduced the drink-driving limit. Does the Minister have any intention of commencing that part of the legislation as well 10 years on?

Ms Kimmins: The Member was in post when the Bill started its passage through the Assembly, and I think that my colleague Chris Hazzard was in post when it got Royal Assent, so that tells Members how long ago the legislation came to pass. As I said, we are looking at a range of options to help improve road safety. We have done work on mobile phone use while driving. The speed limit review consultation is under way. I can speak to officials to see where the drink-driving limit work is at, as I am not sure off the top of my head. As I said, however, I am willing to look at all options that are available to me.

Mrs Mason: I thank the Minister for the information that she has provided on this important initiative. We should all be behind anything that we can do to reduce road traffic collisions. The Minister outlined some of the evidence behind the introduction of graduated driver licensing. Will she give us more detail on how that evidence is being used to inform her approach?

Ms Kimmins: The bottom line is that graduated driver licensing reduces fatal collisions. That, for me, is the ultimate evidence base for doing anything, because it is our key road safety objective. We do not want any more families to get a knock on the door to hear that their child, sister, brother, mother or father — whoever it may be — has been killed in a road traffic collision, particularly where it could have been avoided. It has therefore been well worth the time that it has taken to get to this stage. The change will ensure that we have much safer and much better drivers in the long term, and I hope that its legacy will be that we are all much safer on our roads.

Mrs Cameron: I am here long enough to remember when the then Committee for the Environment scrutinised the legislation. It was a long time ago, so it is good to see its provisions being commenced. I say respectfully that today would have offered a good opportunity for the announcement to be presented by way of a ministerial statement so that Members could have asked questions under that format rather than under this format, but we are where we are.

We welcome any measures that will improve road safety, but is the Minister prepared to issue clear guidance and publications? It is huge reform, with lots of complicated factors involved. It is also good that a change to the speed limit is to come in, because that will provide learners with an opportunity to learn how to drive in an appropriate fashion and how to drive in certain conditions and on certain roads. Will the Minister therefore introduce guidance on all those issues so that people are clear about the changes?

Ms Kimmins: Yes, absolutely. As I said, the introduction date for the GDL is 1 October this year, with the new test being introduced six months later on 1 April 2027, which will accommodate the mandatory minimum learning period of six months for new provisional licence holders. In advance of the introduction of the GDL, the Department will launch a public information campaign and officials will liaise with approved instructors, the PSNI and a range of stakeholders.

Mr O'Toole: I welcome the introduction of the GDL. It is a good and sensible measure. It has taken a long time. You said that work had been going on and that officials had to draft and implement it. Obviously, it should not have taken a decade for it to happen — that is too long — although I welcome it that it has now. I want to ask your opinion. You mentioned the two periods of collapse. I do not want to relitigate the reasons for those: one was caused by Sinn Féin and the other by the DUP. Do you agree that taking that long to implement a life-saving measure underlines the need to fundamentally reform how this place works? We cannot have a situation in which vital, life-saving legislation takes a decade to implement because the Assembly is not even here.

Ms Kimmins: It is regrettable that it has taken that long. However, I do not want to underestimate the time that it took to do the work that was involved in making the changes. The Assembly has been up for a significant part of that time, but, as I mentioned, COVID and other things unfortunately had to take priority during that period.

Yes, absolutely: we would like to see all these things moving quicker, particularly given all the work that had been done prior to 2016, when the legislation was passed by the House. Where we have been able to move things quicker, we have absolutely done so. In the public sector, it is challenging for lots of things to move quicker because we have so many hoops to jump through and we have to ensure that we dot all our i's and cross all our t's. I would have loved to have seen this measure in place long before now. However, I am really pleased that we are bringing it in now and that we will see change in the not-too-distant future.

Ms D Armstrong: Minister, I welcome the initiative. Like others, I hope that it will reduce road deaths and injury. Can you assure the House that, should the initiative be demonstrably successful in reducing accidents and deaths on our roads, you will actively work with the motor insurance industry to reduce the high motor insurance costs for young people?

Ms Kimmins: I have had meetings with British Ministers on that because, obviously, as a reserved matter, motor insurance is the responsibility of Westminster. We have met the Association of British Insurers (ABI) as well to outline the real challenges that we have with motor insurance and house insurance in the North. Evidence suggests that the GDL will help to reduce collisions and the risk of collisions, so there is the potential to see a reduction in insurance premiums for new young drivers, which have grown significantly, even since I first learned to drive. I hope that we will see that progress. When I met the ABI, it was particularly interested in the GDL, as were my counterparts in England, Scotland and Wales at more recent inter-ministerial meetings that I have had with them.

Mr Kingston: Minister, were you aware that the measure was going to be announced on the BBC's breakfast news this morning, or were you, like the rest of us, somewhat taken by surprise?

Ms Kimmins: Obviously, as I had done an interview with the BBC, I knew that it was going to be on the news this morning.

Mr Gaston: I thank the Speaker for ensuring that the issue was brought to the Chamber, which is something that the Minister tried to avoid.

Minister, will those who come to Northern Ireland who hold European driving licences, which are valid for three years before they have to apply for a Northern Ireland driving licence, be exempt from the arrangements? If they are, why should an indigenous person be subject to the constraints that you propose?

Ms Kimmins: As the detail on the GDL states, it is for new drivers with a provisional licence, who will be subject to a six-month period before they can undertake their driving test. If that is the case for someone who comes from another country and takes up a provisional driving licence while they are here, the measures will apply to them.

Ms Brownlee: I have submitted a number of questions on the issue. Today's response is positive. We should be doing everything that we can to save lives.

On 25 June 2025, when you were asked in the Infrastructure Committee for an update on graduated driver licensing, Hansard reported you as saying:

The fundamental issue is that nobody from the Committee is aware of any update on the matter. That is the question, really. Why did that not happen? If you said that you did, what was the date on which it happened? Why did we need a question for urgent oral answer to get the finer details?

Ms Kimmins: I have announced the date of when that will come into play. As I said, the Committee will then be part of the scrutiny of the SRs as they go through.

Mr McGrath: There are elements of this news, whether 10 years old or 10 minutes old, that are good because they will make our roads safer. Has the Minister done any work with the PSNI, which will have to do a substantial amount of enforcement in this regard, to see whether we can get more resources for it? It will be required to do extra work, and we know that it is already under substantial pressure.

Ms Kimmins: As with any piece of legislation that requires enforcement, our officials are always in contact with the PSNI. This may have been spoken about through the road safety partnership. We are all committed to working together to find ways of making our roads safer. As I have said, how the information will be fed out to the public will form part of that work with the PSNI to see how that can be enforced. The fundamental matter is that there is legislation for lots of things, be it drink-driving, speeding, the condition of your car, or your road tax. We understand that resources are stretched for the PSNI, but we also understand that we, as citizens, have a responsibility to uphold the rule of law. As I said earlier, there is a responsibility on all of us to ensure that we encourage others to take heed of the rules that have been set and abide by them.

Mr Wilson: Some time ago, in my previous role on Armagh, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council, I asked the Minister's predecessor whether a simple, hard-hitting and easily understood road safety message was included with first-time driving licences and all renewals. At that time, the Minister said that that was not the case. I am not aware of that position's having changed. In light of that, will the Minister commit to the House to looking at that seriously, so that, when a young person opens the envelope and their licence drops out, the other thing that drops out is a very hard-hitting and simply understood road safety message, which they will immediately correlate with getting their new licence?

Ms Kimmins: It is about anything that we can do to raise awareness and help people to think differently. Members will be aware that, as I have said previously, 95% of collisions are as a result of driver behaviour. We have a really big job when it comes to changing how we behave when we get behind the wheel. That is one way of doing that and of ensuring that we are creating more experienced, safer drivers. We are constantly looking at what other campaigns and mechanisms we can use to get that message out. Even this, in itself, is a messaging campaign for new drivers about their responsibilities. It is part of the work that they will do in the lead-up to their driver test. I am happy to speak to the partnership about what else we could be doing to get that message to hit home a little bit more.

Mr Speaker: Twenty-two questions were asked, which demonstrates the importance of the issue to the House and why it needed to be brought here.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Stewart Dickson to make a winding-up speech on the motion. Stewart, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr Dickson: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank my colleague Paula Bradshaw for moving the motion, and I extend a warm word of thanks to every Member who contributed to today's debate. These are serious and important matters that not only cover a great deal of our history and our past but, sadly, remain in our present. Regrettably and undoubtedly, they will be in our future as well. I particularly thank Gerry Carroll for tabling his amendment, which we fully support, as has been discussed by colleagues in the debate. I also thank each Member who participated in the debate: Linda Dillon, Pam Cameron, Robbie Butler, Sinéad McLaughlin, Carál Ní Chuilín, Nuala McAllister, Timothy Gaston and junior Minister Reilly, who responded on behalf of the Executive Office. I will come to some of her remarks shortly.

In making a winding-up speech on the debate, I say that we need to remember why the motion was tabled and what we are asking the Executive Office to do. Throughout the debate, it has been clear that Members across the House have acknowledged the profound seriousness of clerical child abuse and the lasting harm experienced by victims and survivors. There is a broad agreement that what people endured was wrong, that safeguarding failures were systemic and that those who came forward showed immense courage. We welcome that consensus. That has been the view of everyone who has participated in the debate today.

The core issue is simple. In July 2025, independent research commissioned by the Executive Office was submitted to the First Minister and deputy First Minister. That research depended on victims and survivors coming forward in good faith, sharing extremely painful experiences and trusting that their voices would be heard. However, many months later, those reports remain unpublished. We heard with concern today that they may never be published but only be taken account of in the next steps of the process. I find that concerning.

Ms Reilly (Junior Minister, The Executive Office): I thank the Member for giving way. In my remarks, I said that it was never the intention. However, the intention may be that they are published. It may be worth mentioning that, if the Committee feels that it is important, the officials could come to the Committee to give an account of the reports in closed session; perhaps that would be helpful. It was never that they may never be published. It was just that it was never the intention to publish.

Mr Dickson: That is a very helpful explanation from the junior Minister. Certainly, the Chair and I would very much welcome that briefing at the Executive Office Committee.

What needs to follow from that is a very clear timeline on where this is all taking us to in having clarity around a public inquiry. Brave individuals came forward, but, currently, they are in the dark.

Good government is measured not by PR releases or the reports that you commission but by what you do with them. People were asked to relive deep trauma, trusting that it would lead to change. To leave them in limbo now is to tell them that their voices matter only up to a point. That is not good enough.

Let me be clear: the motion does not seek to rush Ministers or to pre-empt outcomes. The matters are, indeed, complex. However, careful consideration should not mean open-ended delay, particularly as we progress towards the end of the mandate. Seven months on, real leadership, clarity and a real follow-through are required. That is what those people and all of us expect. That is why we tabled today's motion. It asks for three reasonable steps, the first of which is publishing the reports. I appreciate that sensitivity will be required around that, but survivors need to see the findings of their testimonies produced. I can certainly attest to that when it comes to mother-and-baby homes. There are many who wanted to see out in the open what they had said on how they were treated. Secondly, we need to set out a funded and time-bound response to deliver safeguarding and support. Thirdly, we need a clearly stated position on the recommendations for an independent public inquiry.

This is about transparency, accountability and respect. It is about showing survivors that, when the Government ask for their testimony, they will not walk away once the resulting report has been submitted. It is about restoring people's confidence that the Assembly can see difficult work through to the end. Good government is measured not only by its commitments but by its outcomes. On an issue involving harm that has lasted a lifetime, and on which trust is nothing but shattered, process without progress is failure. The victims and survivors in that tragic litany of life deserve honesty and, today, action. For those reasons, I urge Members to support the motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed, Stewart. I thank everybody in the Chamber for their contributions to the debate.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I ask Members to take their ease while we line up the next item of business.

Mr Martin: I beg to move

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

Peter, please open the debate on the motion.

Mr Martin: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. The motion addresses a persistent driver of commercial sexual exploitation in Northern Ireland: the rise of so-called pimping websites. Such websites allow the advertisement and purchase of sexual access to women in a way that mirrors online retail. Individuals can filter searches based on appearance, location and sex act. In allowing them to do so, the websites reduce human beings to commodities and normalise the idea that access to another person's body can be bought on demand.

Whilst such sites often present themselves as neutral intermediaries, or even as safeguards for those involved in prostitution, the evidence increasingly points in the opposite direction. The platforms generate substantial income and profit while creating an environment that enables exploitation, shields traffickers from detection and increases demand for sexual services.

Northern Ireland's legislative framework, particularly since 2015, sought to reduce the demand and disrupt the commercial structures that sustain exploitation. Indeed, my DUP party colleague Lord Morrow led the way in opposing and tackling sexual exploitation in Northern Ireland with the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2015, creating a significantly more robust framework for confronting the systemic roots of sexual exploitation.

I take the opportunity to thank Christian Action, Research and Education NI (CARE NI) for its work and support, both then and to date. However, we must not become complacent. The growth of technology has provided new mechanisms through which commercial sexual exploitation can operate. The link between prostitution, advertising websites and trafficking is now well established. One major concern about pimping websites is the facilitation of human trafficking, which, in itself, is not a new revelation. In 2023, a House of Commons Home Affairs Committee report said:

An inquiry into sexual exploitation advertising websites by a cross-party group on commercial sexual exploitation (CSE) also drew extremely worrying conclusions. A detective superintendent who heads Police Scotland's human trafficking unit told the inquiry:

Ruth Breslin from the Sexual Exploitation Research and Policy Institute (SERPI) in the Republic, who came to the event that we had last week, highlighted how pimping websites facilitate those who actively want to take advantage of vulnerable women and girls. She recounted how Escort Ireland encourages those wanting to purchase sex to come to its website to meet a beautiful Ukrainian escort. In the aftermath of the invasion of Ukraine, it wrote a blog inviting sex buyers to do exactly that.

Such exploitation is highly profitable. It has been alleged that sex traffickers can earn almost €200,000 per year for each woman whom they exploit in the South. Those seeking to exploit women can gain great wealth, and pimping websites are a tool to facilitate that. They embed the idea that a woman's body can be purchased, browsed and rated, and they reinforce attitudes of entitlement and objectification. While some may argue that such platforms often offer safety and autonomy, that fails to take into account the realities of exploitation and the volume of evidence that points towards abuse, coercion and third-party control. Those are not marginal issues confined to a small number of bad actors; they are fundamental to how the sites operate.

The motion is not about rhetoric, the debate is not about rhetoric and it is not about revisiting settled debates from the past. It is about recognising that the landscape of exploitation has changed and that our response must duly change with it. Those websites sit at the heart of a system that profits from inequality and vulnerability whilst making enforcement much more difficult and exploitation much more efficient.

As I referenced last week, I was proud to host an event in the Long Gallery. I can see the deputy chair of the newly formed all-party group (APG) on modern slavery and sexual exploitation sitting on the Front Bench over there. Alongside CARE NI, we marked over a decade since the Human Trafficking Act came into effect in Northern Ireland. We had a number of notable speakers at the event, and one was the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner, Eleanor Lyons. Eleanor is conducting research on adult services websites and is passionate about holding them to account. We also recently launched the APG, which will be conducting an inquiry into those pimping websites.

If Northern Ireland is serious about preventing exploitation and disrupting those who profit from it, we cannot ignore the role that such platforms play. In my role as chair of the new APG on modern slavery and sexual exploitation, I hope to take forward actions that will impact on their ability to function in Northern Ireland. The motion is a necessary step in acknowledging the reality of the situation that we face and in signalling the Assembly's support for doing something about it. I commend the motion to the House.

Ms Sheerin: I support the motion. At the outset, I acknowledge that we still have a bit to do on exploring how such websites present themselves across society. We also need to have a real conversation about the risks. The fact that we are having this debate today is welcome — I would welcome more such conversations — and heartening, following yesterday evening's debate on the use of deepfakes to abuse women. It is important that such conversations become mainstream and that we in the Assembly lead on them.

Ten years ago, we supported legislation that was in line with the Nordic model to criminalise those who purchase sex, as opposed to those who work in the sex services industry. It is important that we are led by those people. Consideration should be given to their evidence on the use of such websites as a safety measure and their ability to screen the people who use them. That is an important factor to consider as we proceed. I welcome the opportunity to flesh out the issue and have a full conversation about it.

We know that advances in technology are moving incredibly fast. As I said last night, the abuse of women is as old as time, but technology is allowing people to do it in more nefarious ways than ever before. The use of such websites can further that abuse by allowing the perpetrators — those who seek to use and abuse women — to live "normal" lives and be upstanding members of society whilst their activities are hidden in plain sight, in that they occur right under our nose.

It is important that we remove the shame and stigma from those who are engaged in sex work, particularly the victims of human trafficking or any other sort of exploitation. That is something on which we all need to take a stand. An education piece is definitely needed. As with all elements of it, misogyny can exist only where there is ignorance and where we do not have informed conversations with boys and girls, and with young men and young women, about the dangers. That is increasingly important as well.

I conclude by saying that I support today's motion and welcome the establishment of the APG. Its work will be fundamental to protecting all those involved.

Ms Egan: On behalf of the Alliance party, and as vice chair of the all-party group on modern slavery and sexual exploitation, I will respond to the motion that my DUP colleagues tabled. Let me start by being totally clear. Human trafficking and modern slavery totally undermine what should be a fundamental foundation of our society: the freedom, dignity and choices of one another. Holding another against their will or forcing an individual into unwanted sexual acts for payment is abhorrent and criminal in the strictest terms. That includes when it is facilitated by adult services websites.

The UK Anti-slavery Commissioner, Eleanor Lyons, said that, in 2024, almost 5,000 women and girls in the UK were identified as being victims of sexual exploitation and that that was only the tip of the iceberg. Modern slavery and human trafficking is an incredibly hidden, gendered form of abuse that disproportionately affects women and girls globally. It is, of course, under-reported, so, data-wise, understanding its true extent is still a work in progress. It is with that in mind that we, as an Assembly, must take all steps possible to support the investigation that the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner's office announced into adult services platforms in August of last year. The purpose of that investigation is to create an evidence base and make a series of recommendations on the best way to disrupt the exploitative online practices that result in the trafficking and sexual exploitation of individuals in the UK.

Telecommunications is a reserved matter for Westminster, so it is right that the motion focuses on pressing the UK Government for further enforcement and penalties for exploitative practices online. That runs alongside the work that the Department of Justice already undertakes locally through its modern slavery and human trafficking strategy.

Last week, along with colleagues, I attended the launch of the APG's inquiry into the regulation of websites that advertise sex for sale. We heard from those who are working to tackle the commercial sexual exploitation of women across these islands, and from women with lived experience of that exploitation. I thought that it would be pertinent to share what that exploitation looks like in 2026, 10 years on from Lord Morrow's Act, during which time technology and the tactics used in commercial sexual exploitation have evolved. We learned from those who are actively monitoring the trafficking that, on this island, one dominant website advertises women for sale in such a way that it is as easy as ordering a takeaway. That website uses coded language, outfits and emojis to indicate the age range of those on the platform and the services that they provide. Worryingly, that includes specific indicators that facilitate the exploitation of those who are under 18. Users — more often than not, men — scroll and select who they would like to engage with, based on photographs and the accompanying listing. That is what some have described as "the Etsy of exploitation". There are hundreds of women and girls listed on that website each day. They are victims of trafficking, who are controlled and forcibly moved around the island weekly, because those purchasing sex demand new and unfamiliar faces. Those women and children often blame themselves for being put in that position and, in fear of prosecution or shame, are too embarrassed to come forward to justice agencies for help if the opportunity arises. However, in reality, we know that they are victims — victims of commercial exploitation and trafficking — and that they must be protected.

It is positive that our approach in Northern Ireland is not to criminalise those victims but instead, through the national referral mechanism (NRM), to provide holistic, wrap-around support when they come forward. It is only with understanding that we can move the dial forward on such horrific crimes.

It is right that we refresh our enthusiasm and focus on the issue of commercial sexual exploitation, particularly 10 years after the passing of legislation in that area. Much can happen in that time, but our reflections must be grounded in the evidence of victims and survivors and others who are working at the coalface. Sexual exploitation through trafficking must be ended. Together, as an Assembly, we can work to ensure that as many barriers to perpetrators as possible are built to end these horrific crimes.

Mr Beattie: Support for the motion is a no-brainer, and I support it wholeheartedly. I support it on the fundamental grounds of justice, human dignity, safety and a duty to protect the most vulnerable. The motion correctly identifies a grim reality of the digital age: adult services websites have become the modern-day high street for exploitation. They do not simply advertise: they industrialise and normalise the buying of human beings, primarily women and girls, under a thin veil of commerce. Those platforms are the primary facilitators of traffickers and exploitative punters, allowing them to operate with anonymity, scale and impunity. They mask coercion behind a drop-down menu and transform profound human suffering into a simple online transaction. Northern Ireland has rightly taken a pioneering stand. Our 2015 Human Trafficking Act, which criminalised the purchase of sex, was built on the Nordic model — the principle of targeting demand and supporting those who are being exploited.

I have previously spoken in the Chamber about my experiences in Kosovo, where I saw the genesis of human trafficking. Most of the time, we see its outcomes, but I saw the start of it. I saw the kidnapping gangs that went out to look for young women and girls. I saw them warehoused before they were trafficked on. I saw the families who were exploited by those people before they trafficked their daughters into that trade. I have seen that route, and it has stayed with me for an awfully long time. Now that I am here, working with the good people in the Assembly, I can see what we are trying to do to end trafficking, but we see the end stage, not necessarily all the suffering that goes along with it. Prostitution is not a career choice but, in the vast majority of cases, a site of immense gender violence, poverty and trauma. We have been leaders in recognising that you cannot truly combat trafficking while providing a safe, searchable marketplace for traffickers' goods.

Our laws have a critical gap, however. While it is an offence here to purchase or control a person for the purpose of prostitution, the digital pimps and website operators who profit enormously from such exploitation often operate from outside this jurisdiction. They are shielded by the lack of specific UK-wide offences. That loophole undermines our entire legislative intent. Therefore, the call to the Justice Minister is not just logical but imperative. The Minister must press the UK Government on one clear, unequivocal demand: to create a new offence of operating a website that hosts advertisements for prostitution. That would target the business model and its sources. It would increase the risk for traffickers, disrupt the primary channel of the trade and begin to shrink the demand that fuels it. It would be a targeted response to the organised crime gangs that exploit the present gaps. We need to understand that the vast majority of this is done by organised crime gangs.

It is not about policing the internet; it is about upholding the law and protecting women. Just as we would not tolerate a newspaper openly advertising and trafficking women, we cannot tolerate its digital equivalent. The motion reaffirms our moral and legislative consistency. We have chosen to stand with the exploited, not the exploiters.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way. I hope that he agrees that the tone of the debate has been one of collective support for the motion. Is there a role not just for our Justice Minister but for our MPs in Westminster, who could work together to put pressure on the UK Government?

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

Mr Beattie: There is no doubt of that. The Minister can only do so much. She can make robust calls, but we need something to be done in Westminster. In many ways, Westminster will have to lead on some of it. It is not left sitting on the Minister's shoulders, but the call is for us, through the Minister, to be robust in trying to get change.

To maintain our leadership, we must now ensure that our tools match the technology of the abusers. I urge all Members to support the motion. Let us send a clear message to victims that we see their exploitation and demand that the UK Government act to shut down the digital slave markets that operate in plain sight. I am in no doubt that everybody in the Chamber and further afield fully understands the issues that we face. It is important now that we build momentum to close the sites down, because, if we do not, we will fail the victims.

Mr McGlone: The SDLP welcomes the debate and supports the motion. Sexual exploitation is a form of violence primarily against women. There is growing concern about websites that facilitate the organised commercial sexual exploitation and human trafficking of women and girls and host advertisements for prostitution. I listened carefully as Mr Beattie gave his real-life experiences of what goes on to bring us to the situation where such websites operate.

There appears to be no convincing reason why online advertisements for prostitution are not banned, as they are in some countries. However, the Assembly should be cautious about measures that merely hide organised commercial sexual exploitation from view while allowing it to continue. While enforcement is not mentioned in the motion, it is important to highlight it. Foremost in our concerns should be the safety and welfare of the victims of such organised activity. Those victims are often some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Research in the area is notoriously difficult, and the research that is available is often contested. However, it suggests that there is limited evidence of a reduction in trafficking as a result of simply banning advertisements for prostitution. When banned elsewhere, online advertisements have moved to encrypted platforms or to offshore sites.

As, I am sure, the Members who tabled the motion are aware, there were two proposed amendments to the UK's Crime and Policing Bill that aimed to ban or criminalise websites and online platforms that host advertisements for prostitution. The British Government did not support the amendments: neither amendment was progressed, and there were no new or replacement amendments along those lines. They are not part of the Crime and Policing Bill, which is in its final parliamentary stages. As it is a reserved matter, the Justice Minister and the Executive are powerless to act on their own.

In 2015, the Assembly passed the Human Trafficking and Exploitation Act, which made it an offence to pay for sexual services. That was in line with the Nordic model. That approach aims to reduce demand for prostitution; improve the lives of those with experience of prostitution through support mechanisms; help those involved to exit; and change social attitudes. The three-year review of the impact of the 2015 Act reported that, in the period from June 2015 to December 2018, there were 15 arrests and just two convictions for purchasing sex, and 31 arrests but only two convictions for human trafficking for sexual exploitation. That review concluded that the legislation had minimal effect on the demand for sexual services, and it was unable to determine how it had impacted on human trafficking.

In 2019-2020, 111 potential victims of trafficking in the North were referred to the national referral mechanism. That was double the number of referrals from the previous year. There has also been an upward trend in the official figures for human trafficking referrals since 2020, with 496 referrals here in 2024. However, between 2020 and 2024, there were just 11 prosecutions for offences under the 2015 Human Trafficking and Exploitation Act, and, of those 11 prosecutions, there were just seven convictions. Obviously, that suggests that what is needed is greater enforcement of our existing laws.

We are not necessarily opposed to the banning of specific websites as part of a wider strategy to tackle organised commercial sexual exploitation and the human trafficking of women and girls, but the evidence suggests that the real benefits come from clear and enforceable objectives that prioritise the safety and well-being of those involved in prostitution, including providing exit routes, as well as sustained enforcement strategies aimed at detecting the men who pay for sex from the sites. That is where, we believe, the Minister should focus her attention.

Ms Ferguson: I welcome the motion and thank the Members who tabled it, because we all know that victims of sexual exploitation and human trafficking are oftentimes among some of the most vulnerable and traumatised individuals in our communities.

The Department of Justice strategy on modern slavery and human trafficking for 2024-27 rightly focuses on the relentless pursuit and disruption of offenders, the protection and support of victims and the longer-term prevention of those practices, including through awareness raising and training. Arguably, the fourth "p" is about strengthening partnership and collaboration on the issue, and we therefore very much welcome the opportunity to engage further with the recently established all-party group on human trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation. We must unite to tackle all forms of sexual exploitation and human trafficking, including child sexual exploitation. That requires a holistic approach to strengthening our legal frameworks, tackling poverty and deprivation and expanding awareness around trafficking, coercion and exploitation.

I will acknowledge, briefly, some of the brilliant work being undertaken by the likes of the NSPCC and Barnardo's to raise awareness of the issues. Prostitution and the wider sex trade industry are highly gendered. Additionally, they are inextricably linked with other intersectional identities, with many women entering that industry as a result of coercion due to their experience of poverty, human trafficking or grooming. We have a duty to tackle the continued exploitation of vulnerable groups, including those experiencing homelessness or addiction issues, migrant women and those living in abject poverty.

Child sexual exploitation is utterly devastating. The statistics and research suggest a particular link between children who have been reported missing from residential care homes and child sexual exploitation. The hidden nature of human trafficking and its under-reporting remain a significant challenge. Other aspects, including language barriers, immigration status and educational under-attainment can support the enablement of those horrific crimes.

We need strengthened all-Ireland collaboration between the PSNI's modern slavery and human trafficking unit and the gardaí's human trafficking investigation and coordination unit. While the purchase of sex has been criminalised across Ireland, there exists a continuing challenge around tackling the proliferation of websites that provide online hubs for traffickers and exploiters. We must expand community-based education and awareness of issues such as grooming, coercion, consent, exploitation and the different forms of gender-based violence and sexual abuse. We need to strengthen the regulation of online platforms and modern technology to eradicate the facilitation of profiteering from exploitation.

Tackling exploitation and human trafficking requires us to tackle the structures that drive inequality, exploitation and abuse. We have a duty to strengthen regulations that apply to the digital sphere, including AI tools. We must deliver improved all-Ireland collaboration on the issue among criminal justice agencies and front-line responders. We must focus on how to best ensure that our shared focus is grounded in the lived experience of survivors.

A chairde,

we want to deliver a new Ireland in which all women and girls can live free from violence, exploitation, harassment or control; an Ireland that upholds and protects the fundamental rights to dignity, justice and equality; and an Ireland in which women and children are safe inside the home, respected in public places and protected fully in both the physical world and the online world.

Mr Frew: Human trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation are serious and disgusting crimes, and we must do everything in our legislative power to stop them. Lord Morrow's introduction of the Nordic model in 2015 was a major milestone in progressing the objective of reducing demand for prostitution and, in turn, for human trafficking. I am privileged to have served in the Assembly with Lord Morrow during the passage of that historic Bill.

In 2018, the Home Office estimated that the median time for which a victim trafficked for the purpose of sexual exploitation was held was 274 days. During that period, a victim experiences 795 instances of rape and sexual assault. In 2024, Sky News shared the story of Sarah, who thought she was attending a job interview. She was lured to a flat, where she was asked to hand over her passport. Her passport picture was later used to create an online profile to advertise her for sex. She had no access to or control over that profile. She was raped by her trafficker and abused by the men who booked her through the website. According to Sky News, the man who abused Sarah is now in prison, but the website that facilitated her abuse is still operating.

Sarah's experience is not a horror story from a distant country or a one-off terrible crime. What happened to Sarah happens every day in towns in Northern Ireland. Women and girls are bought and sold as if they were commodities. They are the product, and the pimps and traffickers who supply them are the profiteers, but so, too, are the websites that facilitate the sale of those women and girls. The websites and platforms are not innocent bystanders. They, too, make money from the sale of human beings. One such platform's profits have been reported to run into millions of euros. The websites are the shopfront of human trafficking and exploitation. Men go to the sites to buy women and girls for sex. The sites serve no purpose other than to meet men's demand to access women's bodies while making a tidy profit. The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe points out that:

So-called adult services websites are online brothels, and we allow them to operate with impunity. Of course, central to the crime are the men who buy sex on such sites; men who, as the primary purchasers of sex, have no regard for the plight of the women and girls whom they are purchasing. Those men are not ignorant of the grim reality that exploited women face; they simply do not care. On those sites, purchasers are often able to leave reviews of the women and girls whom they have purchased. Although the existence of that feature is demeaning and degrading in itself, what is, perhaps, more demeaning and degrading are the reviews that men write about the women whom they purchase. The comments are vile and are an indication of the type of men who purchase women.

Pimping websites approve access to women for those men, acting as an online brothel where a man can, with ease, browse and order a woman and then review her as if she were a product. That is absolutely grotesque. As has been outlined, the sites facilitate and drive demand for the human trafficking and exploitation of women and girls into Northern Ireland for that purpose.

In the past month, a man has been charged with controlling prostitution for gain under article 63 of the Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008. It is about time that we see more such convictions.

Ms Finnegan: I welcome the motion. Sinn Féin approaches it with care, seriousness and compassion, because women's lives, safety and dignity are at its heart. There can be no ambiguity in our position when it comes to exploitation, coercion and trafficking. Those are grave abuses of human rights and must be confronted whenever and wherever they occur, including in online spaces. However, we have a responsibility to ensure that our responses do not unintentionally impact on women and place them at greater risk. Evidence from front-line organisations shows that blanket bans or poorly designed criminalisation can push sex workers underground, increasing vulnerability and reducing access to support.

If our aim is the welfare and safety of women, policy must remain and always be victim-centred, trauma-informed and shaped by lived experiences. The focus must remain on those who profit from exploitation: traffickers, organised criminal networks and abusers. Online platforms have responsibilities and must be held accountable where they facilitate exploitation or ignore trafficking indicators, but regulation must be carefully designed to enhance women's safety, not undermine it. We must continue to engage constructively on the motion, guided by a single principle, which is that women's safety, dignity and well-being must come first.

Mr Kingston: We like to think that our lives have been improved by modern technology and the online world of the internet, and, in many ways, that is true. Modern technology and innovations can also be used in negative and harmful ways, however. Our motion highlights the operation of commercial sexual exploitation online and the human trafficking of women and girls facilitated through pimping websites, also known as adult services websites. The matter was raised at the event held here in Parliament Buildings on Monday of last week that was organised by the charity Christian Action, Research and Education and the new all-party group on modern slavery and sexual exploitation. It marked the 10th anniversary of Lord Morrow's Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act.

Our motion:

Some say that prostitution is an adult choice. Some even claim that it is, in some way, empowering for some women as a source of income. In the vast majority of cases, however, we know that it is the exact opposite of empowering. Women's bodies should never be treated as a commodity for sale. When women are trafficked, often under false pretences, and forced or coerced into prostitution, that is modern slavery of the worst kind. Every effort must be made to bring that to an end.

At last week's event, one speaker said how she had been a prostitute some years previously. It made a very strong impression on me to hear her speak of the physical, emotional and mental damage that that caused her and that endures to this day. The Department of Justice has stated that prostitution and human trafficking in Northern Ireland are linked to organised crime networks that exploit vulnerable people for profit. Lord Morrow's 2015 Act adopted the Nordic model of criminalising the purchase of sexual services while decriminalising those who sell sex. That model is widely recognised as a means to reduce human sex trafficking.

A Sky News investigation in June 2025 found thousands of potential indicators of sexual exploitation on two of the UK's most prominent adult services websites. It analysed 50,000 advertisements, which revealed a high concentration of red flags linked to organised exploitation, including repeated use of the same contact numbers and duplicated text across adverts for different women in different geographical locations.

Pimping websites play a key role in facilitating organised crime groups to exploit women and girls. In 2023, the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust) said that 12 suspects had been charged after an investigation of an organised crime group that allegedly recruited young women from Romania and transported them to Ireland, where they were then advertised on escort websites and sexually exploited. Similarly, in 2024, three members of an organised crime group in Gloucester were jailed for a combined total of 25 years, as police believe that they were running one of the largest sex trafficking operations in the south-west of England, forcing at least 20 women, who were mainly eastern European, to work in brothels. In 2024, three men and one woman, all Romanian with addresses in Ballymena, appeared in court and were charged with controlling prostitution for gain. The victim, who was also from Romania, had sexual services advertised through adverts posted online. This very month, another man was charged with similar offences here. Such activity is therefore a reality in Northern Ireland. We must act against the operation of such websites, and I commend our motion to the House.

Mr Butler: I thank the Members who have contributed. This is a sensitive and important topic. I remember being interested in and intrigued by the debate in 2015. I was not an MLA at the time, but I want to put on record my thanks to Lord Morrow for the work that he did on that legislation because it recognises the abuse, exploitation and experience of women and girls. The legislation sought to decrease the demand for purchasing sexual services and the consequent human trafficking.

Members have rightly highlighted that we need to be intentional about what we do but also ensure that we protect the vulnerable woman and young people who may be affected by this. The Act introduced new trafficking offences, and, as many Members have said, used the Nordic model. We have to be very clear, however, that the exploitation of women and girls is a form of violence. We must build on the legacy of the 2015 Act and ensure that women and girls are protected by every jot and tittle of legislation that the Assembly passes.

The experiences of women on adult service websites are often traumatic and distressing, and we need to provide adequate support in the meantime. Prostitution is an act of violence against women and girls. It inherently dehumanises women and reduces them to nothing more than a commodity. One study contrasted real advertisements for prostitution online with real reviews of women provided by sex buyers and quotes from women with lived experience of prostitution. I am going to read some of those into the record. One reviewer stated:

One woman with lived experience stated:

Disgracefully, to some of those who use the service, the purchasing of a woman online is no different from ordering a takeaway, yet, as Mr Kingston rightly pointed out, some would seek to push an agenda that legitimises prostitution as a form of empowerment for women and as a lifestyle defined by glamour and independence, which it is not. The reality is much grimmer and more devastating for the women and girls who suffer physically, mentally and emotionally.

Women and girls in prostitution are more likely to experience violence. A consultant gynaecologist who runs a sexual health clinic for sex workers and other vulnerable women in Edinburgh stated:

Despicable.

Those in favour of pimping websites argue that they provide greater safety and security for women and girls. However, Valiant Richey, the OSCE special representative and coordinator for combating trafficking in human beings, told an inquiry by the cross-party group on commercial sexual exploitation in Scotland that an argument that he hears:

Mrs Dillon: Will the Member give way?

Mr Butler: Yes, absolutely?

Mrs Dillon: Does the Member agree that there is no such thing as a "good buyer", and that the very fact that they are buying sex and using women for sex is an act of violence in itself?

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

Mr Butler: I absolutely do agree. There is much more that we can do upstream. This is not in my notes, but I will refer to it. We have a culture that is being fed from a young age. I remember my kids watching a Disney cartoon when they were young in which the young characters were twerking like Miley Cyrus.

If we are looking for a cultural shift, this is part of it, but we need to look at the sexualisation and exploitation of our young people in its entirety and at the message sent out by moviemakers and cartoon makers. It starts at a very young age. That is the attitude piece that you talk about. You are absolutely right: it is a form of violence.

The websites create a digital platform that drives violence against women and girls by turning women into commodities for potential buyers to pursue and then select one who fits their taste. They reinforce the gender dynamics that underpin violence against women and girls, sadly, from a young age. The platforms industrialise the embedded violence and stereotypes that put women in danger. We must do everything in our power to curtail the demand for the industry while providing women and girls with real opportunities to exit it.

I will finish with this one; it is a slight curveball. My church is trying to raise money for women who are caught in prostitution in India, where £500 buys a woman out of the sex industry. We need to do more here to protect women in Northern Ireland.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Mr Gaston: I support the motion. The truth is that one of the main drivers for human trafficking in Northern Ireland is the demand for paid sex. That is not to suggest for one moment that we should not do everything that we can to address demand for all forms of human trafficking. We all have a moral duty to do so. However, the way we address demand for forced labour is different from the way we address demand for paid sex. I strongly support having a focus on this element of the demand for human trafficking today.

It is really important that, in addressing the subject, we do not fall into the trap of seeking to address the suffering that arises from the demand for paid sex only if people have been trafficked. While some people who are drawn into prostitution have been trafficked, most are exploited in domestic prostitution. That is the principal reason why the 2015 Act is called the "Human Trafficking and Exploitation Act": while it engages with human trafficking, it is not just about human trafficking but about wider exploitation. As a society, we need to keep in view the central exploitation that arises from commodifying someone and paying for access to their body. That is deeply dehumanising and degrading and should have no place in Northern Ireland.

In 2015, Northern Ireland took the lead in the area by criminalising paying for sex. I am concerned that we seem to have lost our way somewhat since then. In the first instance, the rates of arrests, prosecutions and convictions for purchasing sexual services remain low, although they are much higher than those that relate to the previous offence. Last year, Belfast Live reported that, between 2015 and March 2025, the PSNI had recorded 115 arrests for the offence of paying for sexual services. Between 2015 and the end of 2024, the PSNI referred 131 cases to the PPS. In 55 of those cases, the decision was taken not to prosecute. Even after such cases are passed to the PPS, they are rarely progressed further. The first case reached the Magistrates' Court in 2018, and the first case before the Crown Court was in 2021. We can change the culture in Northern Ireland only if we apply the will to properly enforce our law.

Today, I detect a loss of way or, at least, momentum in the motion. In 2015, we led the way in the UK. Had we, back then, simply passed a motion asking UK Ministers to criminalise paying for sex, nothing would have happened. We have the powers to legislate to prohibit pimping websites in Northern Ireland already, so we should prohibit them rather than waiting for others to do so.

Mr Carroll: Of course, human trafficking is a disgusting, exploitative and rotten practice that must end. One of the quickest ways to do that would be to ensure that there is support and safe access routes for migrants and asylum seekers, which the party to my right usually opposes. There is no doubt that some sex traffickers try to use adult services websites to coerce, prey on and bring harm to vulnerable women. However, it is dangerous to conflate sex work and human trafficking, which is what the motion does. That is precisely why we should challenge the call to further criminalise sex work under the guise of protecting women and girls from trafficking, which is what the motion does. It is currently illegal to purchase sex, but it is not illegal to sell it. That partial criminalisation — neo-abolitionism, if you will — has clearly not succeeded in its aims. The demand is still there, and people continue to buy services online.

We need to listen to the voice of sex workers — that has not been mentioned in the debate — who tell us that they want to feel safe in their job, regardless of how people in here feel about the nature of that work. NHS drop-in support services for sex workers in the North have been shut down, leaving people isolated and vulnerable. The state is actively failing those sex workers. Sex workers tell people that adult services give them more control over their work, which is something that everybody wants across society. They can potentially screen clients before they meet them and set limits on what they will and will not offer.

The term "adult services" is generic and wide-ranging. I am concerned that the likes of OnlyFans and other websites that, quite often, adults and younger adults use are included in the motion. That is very problematic, to put it mildly. We need to decriminalise and regulate sex work, not criminalise websites that actively reduce harm out of existence. Prohibition will not stifle demand; it will only drive sex work underground, where there is a far greater risk of exploitation and violence against women. The creation of a black market is not good for anyone except human traffickers. It is worth nothing that, in the South of Ireland, violence against sex workers increased by 77% in the year following partial criminalisation. That is not protection; it is state-sanctioned harm.

We should also be suspicious of any demands relating to women's bodies coming from evangelical Christian lobby groups and the DUP in particular. Policies should be evidence-based, not driven by religious or aggressive political ideology. If the DUP really cared about the safety of women and girls, it would support women who are engaged in sex work to be as safe as possible. Further criminalisation will have the opposite effect.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: Sure.

Mr Frew: Does the Member agree that it was the DUP that led the way in introducing the Nordic model to Northern Ireland?

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

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

I do not know whether the Member has been listening, but the Nordic model is problematic. However, I note that the DUP led the way in that regard.

The DUP often talk about women's safety, but, usually, it is a pretext for an attack on migrants, trans people or other people. It is worth challenging that point. [Interruption.]

I do not know what the Member to my right is saying, but I will move on.

Adult services websites are already regulated under the Online Safety Act 2023, which is supposed to protect users from trafficking. Those websites are regulated by Ofcom. If we want to stop the exploitation of women, we should consider more effective ways of regulating websites in order to stop trafficking. Everybody wants to do that, but I and many others have a problem with the conflation of it and adult services. It could help to identify red flags such as the one phone number being used, as Members mentioned. It is possible and necessary to support the full decriminalisation of sex work and the self-organisation of sex workers while being critical of exploitation and fundamentally opposed to trafficking. That means listening to sex workers, respecting their choices and refusing to criminalise women out of existence while claiming to save them.

I refer Members to today's 'The Irish News', in which Aoife Moore has a good column that deals with some of the issues. She says:

because it allows people to have choice. She also states:

There needs to be a bit more nuance in the debate. I really oppose the way in which adult services and human trafficking have purposely been conflated.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister, you have up to 15 minutes.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to today's debate. As most Members are aware, telecommunications is a reserved matter for which the UK Government have responsibility. However, as Justice Minister, I am unwavering in my commitment to protect women and girls from harm and to take every possible step within my powers to keep them safe from all forms of abuse and exploitation.

The sexual exploitation of women and children is a form of violence against those women and children. Child sexual exploitation is a form of child abuse. Commercial sexual exploitation and the human trafficking of women and children through adult services websites — so-called pimping websites — is not acceptable in any form and is an affront to our values as a society.

The previous speaker talked about people's choices, but I would ask whether people make those choices on the basis of desperation and need, as opposed to free will. There is a coercive element to people's decision-making that needs to be addressed when we deal with such issues. The fact that somebody chooses from a menu of particularly unpalatable options does not necessarily mean that they are content with their decision. The victims of such exploitation are some of the most vulnerable, and the crimes against them often go unnoticed and unreported. Victims are often hidden in plain sight on those websites.

Social media and online activity have become integral to modern life, but they give rise to serious risks, particularly of grooming, exploitation and abuse. Pimping websites are online platforms through which sexual services are advertised. Evidence from other jurisdictions clearly shows that such sites are increasingly exploited by traffickers as a means to advertise, monitor and exert control over victims of modern slavery. They also give a veneer of professionalism and even respectability to something that is exploitative, degrading and dehumanising. The objectification and commodification of human bodies is profoundly disturbing and creates a risk of everyone in society being reduced in that way.

The websites increase the scale and profitability of sex trafficking by making it easier to perpetrate the crime. Sexual exploitation and trafficking are already highly lucrative, and such platforms further enable the large-scale monetisation and industrial exploitation of some of society's most vulnerable individuals. The UK's Joint Slavery and Trafficking Analysis Centre has stated:

I am sure that Mr Carroll would agree that we need to take that incredibly seriously. Websites that facilitate the potential for exploitation cannot be tolerated, and we must work together to tackle the issue.

Members are well aware that commercial sexual exploitation is a crime that does not respect borders. It is vital that we continue to work closely with our neighbouring jurisdictions to strengthen our collective response, share policy and operational developments and identify further opportunities for collaboration. Recognising the cross-border relevance of tackling commercial sexual exploitation, my officials are already engaged in work with other jurisdictions across the UK and Ireland to discuss how the crime presents in each jurisdiction and opportunities for collaboration on policy and operational activity.

I am pleased that Assembly colleagues have recently established the all-party group on modern slavery and commercial sexual exploitation and launched an inquiry into adult services websites and their facilitation of those crimes. That is a welcome and proactive development that will provide important evidence on the scale and nature of the sex trafficking and exploitation facilitated online in Northern Ireland. I have every confidence that it will play a vital role in informing our policy response, strengthening protection for victims and disrupting those who perpetrate harm. It will reinforce our collective focus on tackling that abhorrent crime, ensuring that support for victims remains effective and firmly victim-centred. Importantly, it will raise awareness of the issue, so that the reporting is not something to be feared but is instead seen as a vital lifeline for those who find themselves trapped in a web of sexual exploitation and abuse. Where evidence from that inquiry and from operational partners identifies gaps in Northern Ireland's legal and regulatory frameworks, I will, of course, consider what further action is required to deter the platforms that enable the commercialisation of sexual exploitation.

I have stated that telecommunications is a reserved matter under the responsibility of the UK Government. That means that I do not have the authority to legislate directly in the area or to ban websites in Northern Ireland, despite what some people have erroneously stated. If, however, it becomes clear that change is required, I will certainly engage with the UK Government to ensure that Northern Ireland-specific issues are considered in the context of any legislative developments at Westminster.

As has been discussed in the debate, the UK's Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner is conducting similar research into adult services websites. Northern Ireland is included within the scope of that research, which is hugely important. I look forward to seeing the findings from that research and any recommendations for legislative or policy change that emerge from it.

I highlight to Assembly colleagues my Department's current work to tackle the crimes of human trafficking and modern slavery. On 10 July 2024, I launched a three-year strategy that sets out Northern Ireland's overarching framework for tackling slavery and human trafficking and establishes clear commitments for statutory bodies and civil society partners to ensure a coordinated and robust response. It is built on three central pillars: pursue, protect and prevent.

Among its key commitments, the strategy prioritises the effective use of existing cyber investigative tools to pursue offenders and reinforces the importance of early and ongoing engagement between the PSNI and the PPS in all slavery and trafficking cases. My Department is proactively involved in the organised crime task force subgroup, which monitors the implementation and progress of the strategy. A report reflecting on the first year of implementation is expected to be published shortly.

Support for victims is at the heart of the strategy. Tackling such crimes demands a collaborative, whole-system approach across society, and I remain firmly committed to supporting victims as they recover, rebuild and move forward with their lives. However, it is crucial that victims are identified to enable them to access the necessary support. It can be incredibly difficult for people to come forward, particularly in the "hostile environment" situation where people's immigration status is tied up with their being trafficked. They and, indeed, others may be fearful that, by being exposed or by exposing someone to contact with statutory agencies, they may uncover the illegality of their immigration status. That creates real jeopardy. The Anti-slavery Commissioner and I have discussed that at length. It is therefore important that we reassure people that, if they have been exploited abroad, as the majority of victims identified to date in Northern Ireland have been, we will be able to offer them that support here.

A key priority of the strategy is to improve the identification of victims exploited in Northern Ireland. Too often, people assume that, because the word "trafficking" suggests some form of travel, people need to be physically moved from one place to another for their exploitation to qualify as trafficking, but being trafficked means being made available for criminal or sexual exploitation. Many people in our community are being trafficked within their community at the hands of paramilitaries and drug dealers in order to pay off debts, engaging in activities that they would not otherwise engage in. That is trafficking and needs to be recognised as such.

The national referral mechanism is the UK-wide system for identifying and supporting potential victims of modern slavery and human trafficking. Individuals referred in Northern Ireland can access support funded by my Department, including safe accommodation, financial assistance, healthcare, social care and counselling. That vital support is delivered locally to female victims by Belfast and Lisburn Women's Aid. As Members know, the length of time for which that support is provided in Northern Ireland exceeds that in any other part of these islands. The bespoke, trauma-informed, wrap-around support delivered by our contracted providers offers victims access to specialist services that help them address the trauma of their past experiences while empowering them to recover, rebuild and move forward with their lives.

In 2024, 15 people in Northern Ireland were identified as potential victims of sexual exploitation locally and referred through the NRM. In the first three quarters of 2025, that figure stood at 23. That rise is not just a statistic: behind it, there is evidence of a system that is becoming more alert, more responsive and more determined to uncover exploitation wherever it occurs, including in Northern Ireland. It reflects the real, tangible progress of the three-year modern slavery and human trafficking strategy and speaks to the unwavering dedication of the PSNI and other front-line services that work tirelessly to identify victims and bring those hidden crimes to light. However, it also hints at a growth in such exploitation.

Victims of sexual exploitation are often not even aware that they have been advertised on pimping websites, and many more victims remain hidden. On a recent visit to Hydebank Wood Secure College and Women's Prison, I was shocked to hear the story of a young woman who realised that her supposed boyfriend was actually her pimp only when she discussed her relationship with other women in the prison. His use of her to pay for his drugs had become so normalised that she accepted it as part of a normal relationship, when, clearly, it is not. Convincing victims that they are, indeed, victims is a challenge.

Prostitution and sex work can place individuals, particularly women, at significant risk of exploitation, sexual abuse and physical harm. Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK where the purchase of sexual services is a criminal offence, which reflects our firm commitment to reducing harm and tackling exploitation in all its forms. The Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act 2015, which Lord Morrow introduced in the Assembly as a Bill, and on which one of my predecessors as Minister of Justice, David Ford, worked closely with him, is based on the core element of the Nordic model, which is to criminalise the purchase of sexual services, thus tackling demand while decriminalising the selling of sex so that help can be offered to those who feel trapped.

We should not be complacent, however, because if people think that they will be stopped when they are physically kerb crawling and trying to buy sexual services on the street, they will, of course, move their activities online in order to avoid detection. We have therefore seen a growth in what happens in the online space. That has been accompanied by rapid advances in technology, so online abuse and exploitation are becoming increasingly prevalent. The influence of the online world on our community, especially on our young people, is profound, shaping their attitudes and their ability to build safe and healthy relationships. As technology evolves, so too do the tactics of those who wish to cause harm. We cannot and must not stand still in the face of that challenge. We need to ensure that the criminal justice response evolves at the same time and at the same relentless pace as the tactics used by those who exploit others. We cannot afford to fall behind. Vulnerable women and girls will pay the price if we do.

Where I have been able to, I have taken a proactive approach to strengthening online safety. Members will know that the Online Safety Act 2023 was a landmark step in protecting children and adults from online harm right across the UK. Ofcom, as the regulator, is driving forward implementation through clear guidance and robust codes of practice for online platforms. My officials continue to engage closely with Ofcom, including by providing a detailed response to its recent consultation on additional safety measures. It is fair to say, and I have been open about this, that I think that the Online Safety Act could and should have gone much further, but I will not fail in my desire to continue to press the UK Government on that. Although the responsibility for the 2023 Act and for telecommunications rests with the UK Government, I have worked to influence policy development, strengthen accountability and ensure that our interests are represented.

Colleagues noted yesterday the significant protections that we brought in during the previous mandate and also in more recent times, so I will not rehearse them. I continue to keep the legislative framework under active review, however. I sought and received the Assembly's consent to extend a number of provisions in the Crime and Policing Bill to Northern Ireland, and I am now looking for consent for further provisions in due course, a motion on which will come before the Assembly. Those provisions include strengthening sex offender notification requirements; criminalising the creation of child sexual abuse image generators; introducing specific offences relating to pornography depicting strangulation and suffocation; updating the existing offence of possessing a paedophile manual so that it captures AI-generated material; introducing a power to impose stalking protection orders; introducing a specific offence against criminal exploitation of children; and introducing child criminal exploitation prevention orders to guard against exploitative behaviours. I also intend to table amendments to the Justice Bill at Consideration Stage to criminalise the creation and sharing of sexually explicit deepfake images.

The debate addresses an issue that matters to every one of us: the safety of children, women and girls and of our wider communities. I commend the Members who tabled the motion for debate today. It shines a light on issues that often remain hidden and that leave victims feeling isolated, trapped and, in many cases, fearful or ashamed to speak out. There is no shame in poverty or desperation. There is shame, however, in using, abusing and coercing people living in poverty or who are desperate into acts that they would not otherwise wish to be involved in. I am determined to maintain momentum in that area, and, where evidence supports it, I will seek to strengthen laws further to better protect people in Northern Ireland, particularly those most vulnerable to exploitation. I will also continue to press the UK Government to advance legislation that reduces the facilitation of all forms of exploitation and abuse. I have therefore written to Jess Phillips, the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls, to explore further the options available, and I will keep the House fully informed of any developments as that work progresses.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. I call Diane Forsythe to conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech on the motion. Diane, you have 10 minutes.

Ms Forsythe: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank Peter Martin and other colleagues for tabling the motion. I also thank all Members who contributed to the debate and the Justice Minister for being here and for her contribution.

In my previous job with Belfast and Lisburn Women's Aid, I learned so much about the extent of trafficking in Northern Ireland. I really got my eyes opened. As the Justice Minister said, unless you are close to it, you think that a lot of it is about travelling distances and immigration, whereas a lot of it is happening in plain sight in Northern Ireland. Through my work, I know about the horror experienced by victims and the fear, shame and worry that they have about coming forward. I speak in support of Women's Aid and other organisations that support those suffering at the coalface who perhaps never enter the justice system but who are very much victims.

In the debate, Peter Martin spoke about the launch of the new all-party group, and I congratulate him and others on that. It is a very welcome progression on this important subject. In opening the debate, he spoke about the fact that the websites profit from sexual exploitation. That was a simple comment, but it is, ultimately, what we are talking about today. I welcome the fact that everyone across the Chamber spoke with a united voice, because they recognise the reality and horrors of such websites.

Emma Sheerin said that the abuse of women is nothing new but that technology facilitates it. She said that we need to have informed conversations with young men and young women.

Connie Egan is the vice chair of the all-party group, and I wish her well in that role. She spoke in support of the motion and talked about the under-reporting of such offences, as is the case with many sex offences. She talked about the items of work on the issue that are in the early stages of progression and her commitment to them.

Doug Beattie spoke about the importance of justice and protecting the most vulnerable in society. He spoke of masked individuals and how anonymity is used to exploit women. He gave the House some very real, powerful examples. He said that we do not see the full extent of the suffering of victims.

Paula Bradshaw intervened to, rightly, highlight how our MPs raising the issue at Westminster is critical in our journey.

Patsy McGlone spoke about the need for the safety and welfare of victims to be at the fore. He said that research has shown that there is little evidence of removing the websites. He also said that we need a more efficient enforcement strategy.

Ciara Ferguson spoke about the victims of sexual exploitation and how they are often the most vulnerable in society and need to be our focus. She spoke about increasing awareness and working in partnership and highlighted the important work of the NSPCC and Barnardo's on child sexual exploitation. She mentioned the devastating stories of children who are reported missing from children's homes and often end up in the world of sexual exploitation. She also spoke about the need to strengthen regulation of the websites.

Paul Frew, Chair of the Justice Committee, spoke about the fact that he served in the Assembly with Lord Morrow in 2015 when his legislation was coming through the Assembly. He talked about the harrowing statistics and the story of Sarah. He said that abusers are often convicted but that the websites where the abuse was facilitated remain and profit to the tune of millions. He mentioned how wrong that is. He spoke about the demeaning and degrading comments on those platforms and the need to see more convictions where it really matters.

Aoife Finnegan highlighted the need for compassion and talked about women's lives, safety, dignity and well-being. She spoke of the need to proceed with care to ensure that welfare and safety are at the heart of policy that is shaped by the lived experience of victims.

Brian Kingston highlighted the fact that modern technology has brought forward many good things, but that, unfortunately, it has facilitated crimes in different ways. He spoke of how women are not commodities for sale and every effort should be made to bring such websites to an end.

Robbie Butler spoke of how we need to be intentional in our response, alongside respecting the victims. He spoke about the need to look at the entire culture that surrounds the whole issue.

Timothy Gaston spoke about how dehumanising and degrading such websites are and how there is no place for them in Northern Ireland. He spoke about how the low levels of conviction and enforcement in Northern Ireland for purchasing sexual services do not inspire confidence and need to be improved.

Gerry Carroll said that prohibition might reduce demand but that we run the risk of driving trafficking underground. I thought that that was sensible, but he then went on to attack evangelical Christians and the DUP. The lack of respect for Christian women in Northern Ireland is quite offensive.

I am here as a proud DUP woman who has been elected to the House. I am an active voice on women's safety, and I chair the all-party group on domestic and sexual violence, at which I do not see his party represented too often.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for giving way. I was not taking issue with people who are religious. It is about a form of religious ideology driving policy, which is a bad move. On a point of clarification, I was talking about driving services — not human trafficking — underground. Human trafficking is abhorrent. My issue with the motion is about how it is conflating trafficking with adult services. That is an important clarification. I thank the Member for giving way.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Member, but, unfortunately, he did not apologise for his comments about evangelical Christianity or members of my party.

In response to this important motion, the Justice Minister spoke strongly about her unwavering commitment to the prioritisation of work in this field, and she said that human trafficking websites are an affront to the values of society. She also spoke about the desperation and need of those who have made those choices. She spoke about her track record on moving things forward in a previous mandate, and she welcomed the new all-party group and the launch of its inquiry into adult services websites. We look forward to seeing what the outcome of that will be. The Minister also spoke about the ongoing work within her Department on engaging with other jurisdictions. I welcome that very much and look forward to seeing what comes out of that as we look across to what others are doing and at what is working well. The Minister also spoke, as did other Members, about the need to keep everything here victim-centred. That is incredibly important; I was pleased to hear her say that. She spoke about how it is good that Northern Ireland has been included in some wider research. I welcome that. Again, I look forward to the details of that coming out. Hopefully, that can be captured in the all-party group's inquiry. The Minister also highlighted the Department's work on the three-year strategy, the framework and how the report on one year of the strategy is due out soon. That is good, because it will progress while the inquiry is ongoing. We look forward to those things coming together.

The Minister also spoke about her work with the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner. It is good to hear that they have been working closely on this. She spoke about how the identification of victims is important and gave a lot of food for thought in that area. Her example of the woman in Hydebank not realising that she was a victim of trafficking was powerful, but, sadly, it is not an isolated incident. We know that these things are widespread. The Minister also talked about the need to be victim-centred and to rebuild victims' lives. We need to see a strong justice response. The Minister also spoke of the importance of the work of the PSNI.

In closing, Lord Morrow's legislation was passed in 2015 — just over a decade ago. It is right that we are looking at it closely today. The effectiveness of the legislation is only as good as the enforcement, as was highlighted during the debate. I welcome the Minister's strong commitment in the field. I believe that she takes it seriously. We look forward to the APG inquiry and the Minister and Department's proactive responses to it. We will also continue to work closely with our MP colleagues. As the Minister highlighted, telecoms is a reserved matter, but this is a much wider cultural issue that needs to be addressed. We should be speaking up against this at every opportunity that we get. It is a horrific subject that many shy away from speaking about, but, as was said, it is happening in plain sight in Northern Ireland. Together, we need to stand against it. I hope that all Members can support our motion and commit themselves to working against human trafficking and adult services websites.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members, take your ease for a moment. Thank you.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): In conjunction with the Business Committee, the Speaker has given leave to Cara Hunter to raise the matter of road infrastructure in Ballykelly and Kilrea. Cara, you have up to 15 minutes. Over to you.

Ms Hunter: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the fact that the Infrastructure Minister has given her time to us, the representatives of East Derry, and other Members, representing North Antrim, East Belfast and other constituencies, to discuss traffic delays in our constituency and the wider area. Minister, today is not an opportunity for Members to berate or belittle you; it is more about sharing some lived experiences of my constituents, who are overwhelmed by and, frankly, quite angry about the delays that they experience, particularly this week as road resurfacing work really kicked in. It has been really profound. Certainly, we have heard a number of stories in the media from people who are really fed up. Today is an opportunity for me, as an SDLP MLA, to raise the matter in the House.

I want to talk about something that may sound small on paper but that truly has a massive impact on everyday life for people right across my constituency: the roadworks between Ballykelly and Greysteel, which feel never-ending. I do not know whether I should declare an interest; I use that road almost every day. I am one of the commuters who are really annoyed at the circumstances. I have been late to a number of meetings in the past week, which has been painfully embarrassing and annoying. I have to put that on the record.

We talk a lot in this place about infrastructure, active travel and long-term planning. Of course, we know that all that matters. However, I feel strongly that what matters just as much is my constituents getting to work on time, picking their kids up, getting to a hospital appointment or simply the chemist without it turning into a military operation or them having to guess how long it will take. Right now, for thousands of people across my constituency, whether they are constituents or commuters, that is not happening. For over two years, those roadworks have dragged on. It has been years of unpredictable delays, completion dates rolling on and people leaving early — just in case — only to still end up being late. It is all completely beyond my constituents' control.

I will share some testimonies. I spoke with a number of constituents ahead of the debate, and I want to raise on the Floor their annoyance and how they feel. One woman from Greysteel contacted me, saying that she was unwell and needed an urgent prescription from Boots in Ballykelly, involving a journey of about five miles. Her options were to sit in traffic for up to an hour or drive 14 miles each way through narrow, muddy country roads to avoid the traffic, while sick, with everybody else sadly doing the same thing. Even the back roads are clogged up, because people use them to avoid the traffic. That is really not a reasonable choice to ask people to make. Another constituent told me bluntly that the whole saga is "ludicrous". She is right. She lives in Eglinton and regularly visits her elderly parents in Limavady, or, at least, she used to. Daytime visits have basically stopped, because they are not manageable any more.

It is important to note that, across the House, we all recognise the importance of active travel. It is very important, but many in that area feel that they would have liked a bit more engagement throughout the duration of the roadworks so that they could understand how long they would take and what they are for and to get some answers to ongoing questions.

I will share another story from a mum of three in Limavady. Her children go to school and nursery in Eglinton, and she works in Derry. On some days, she gets through the lights in 10 minutes; on other days, she is stuck for 45 minutes, an hour or even longer. There is no pattern, no reliability and no way for my constituents to plan the basic aspects of their life. Her twins are three years old. One of them has had accidents while sitting in traffic, despite being potty-trained, due to the length of time that it has taken to get home. The other is being assessed for autism and finds the delays and disruption deeply distressing. When she is upset, her mother cannot comfort her, because she is at the wheel of the car, and they are stuck in traffic. That is the human cost of the project. It is important to raise that, but it does not stop there.

People are now taking risks in the traffic. I have heard reports of drivers using the hard shoulder, running red lights and overtaking stationary traffic and of confrontations breaking out on the main road. It is a main road that runs through the heart of my constituency and is used by thousands of people every day. HGVs are being forced down narrow country roads that were never meant for them, so the issue is not just frustrating but dangerous. I must reiterate that it is not about being anti-active travel; today's conversation is about common sense and delivery. It is about taking a moment to reflect on what the Department for Infrastructure has learned from the project, given the significant delays. Could anything have been done differently?

Minister, I ask you, first, to urgently review how the project is being managed, including the use of working-hours traffic controls and consideration being given to whether resurfacing can be done at different times, such as off peak or through the night. If not, why not? What we have learned? Secondly, we need to give people clear and honest timelines. For many of my constituents, that could be something as simple as a sign that says, "You may be stuck in traffic for 30 or 40 minutes". That would be such a simple and effective way of communicating that message, keeping things going and letting people know how long they will be sitting in traffic for. Thirdly, Minister, I will extend an invitation. I know that you have been to Greysteel, and it would be insincere of me to suggest otherwise, but you are more than welcome to come again. If you would like to do that, I will meet you and your officials during a peak time, so that you can see, at first-hand, the pressure that people are under when the road is busy and talk to parents, commuters and, of course, the business owners who, while they try to pay their bills, have been put under significant pressure, because of missing appointment after appointment due to the ongoing traffic problems. Stormont often gets criticised, fairly, for being slow and somewhat disconnected from its people, but today is an opportunity to show that we are listening and can respond.

I will finish by talking about the important issue of the delays at the Kilrea Bridge. I have found communication with me, as an elected representative, to be very good. Some businesses in the area feel, however, that communication with them could be improved. Nothing is perfect, but it is about taking the opportunity to learn what could be done differently. People are stuck in traffic, because of the projects in Kilrea and Greysteel. They are being kept late, and they are stressed. They want communication from the Department. They are asking us, as elected representatives, to step up. Any clarity that you can provide on lessons learned would, therefore, be so helpful, Minister. I am grateful that you are here.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Maurice Bradley.

Mr Bradley: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): You have five minutes.

Mr Bradley: OK. I thank the Member for bringing the debate to the Chamber. It is timely and apt.

I will start with the closure of the Kilrea Bridge, which has had a profound effect on daily lives, on businesses and on the overall well-being of the people in and around Kilrea. Beyond the issue of that immediate disruption, the closure of the bridge has drawn attention to the wider and long-standing challenge of how to maintain historical road infrastructure in a way that safeguards public safety while preserving essential community connectivity. It highlights the delicate balance between conservation, modern engineering and the everyday realities of those who rely on the route as a lifeline rather than as a convenience.

Kilrea Bridge was closed in September 2025, following the discovery of vertical and diagonal cracking in the retaining wall at the south-west end of the structure. Engineers from the Department for Infrastructure concluded that there was a genuine and immediate risk to safety, and the bridge was closed. Since then, the effects of that decision have been felt across the entire community. For residents, the bridge forms part of a vital commuter route, and its closure has forced people to take long detours via Portglenone and Agivey, adding significant time to daily journeys. Local people have voiced strong frustrations, underlining the fact that that crossing is essential for accessing employment, healthcare and key services. Families and schools have also been affected. Local councillors have highlighted the increasing pressures placed on parents, pupils and school staff, as journeys become longer, more complex and more congested, particularly during peak traffic periods. Local businesses are among those who have been severely impacted on, with the closure coinciding with the crucial Christmas trading period. Business owners have reported reduced footfall, longer delivery routes, higher operating costs and a noticeable downturn in trade. That reinforces how central the bridge is to the economic vitality of Kilrea and its hinterland.

There is progress of a kind to report. The main structural repair works to the retaining wall are scheduled to conclude by mid-February, during which time the road will remain closed to heavy goods vehicles. In that context, I place on record my thanks to the Minister and her departmental staff for their ongoing engagement and for keeping my office fully informed of developments throughout the process.

The works represent an important step towards restoring connectivity, but they also underline the vulnerability of relying on a single, ageing structure for such a critical transport link.

The current situation strengthens the case for looking beyond short-term repair to the provision of a new bridge at Kilrea designed to replace the ageing structure over the River Bann. A modern replacement bridge would not only meet contemporary safety and engineering standards but provide long-term resilience and improve capacity and reliability for residents, businesses and emergency services alike. Developing a new bridge would help ensure that Kilrea and the surrounding district were not left exposed to repeated disruption, offering a sustainable solution that supports economic growth, community well-being and regional connectivity for decades to come.

While recent months have been challenging, the ongoing works and wider discussions that they have prompted present an opportunity. This moment underlines the importance of transparent communication, timely engineering interventions and sustained investment in infrastructure that underpins everyday life. It also makes a compelling case for a new bridge at Kilrea that will serve the town and district well into the future. I urge the Minister and the Department for Infrastructure to commence a scoping exercise on a new bridge over the River Bann at Kilrea to complement the relatively new structures at Toome and Agivey.

Mr Robinson: People have said to me that the year-long delays that my constituents have had to contend with would not have happened in Belfast, had a major, key corridor required work in this city. One has only to recall the route that takes many MLAs to their place of work at Stormont: the A2 Sydenham bypass. That was a £3·2 million resurfacing scheme that involved significant evening and weekend work, and it was completed within six months just last year. One must ask why a roadwork contract for one of the busiest routes in Belfast can allow for night-time working, yet one of the busiest routes in the north-west appears to have had no such option for work to be carried out outside of rush hour, thereby minimising the huge upheaval for the people whom I represent.

Minister, you and your Department's officials underestimate the anger in the north-west as a result of the works. I have been a public representative for more than two decades in that region, and I have seen a simple gully repair on that road cause traffic to be backed up for miles. Even I, as a layman with zero engineering expertise, could have predicted that 14 months of intensive work with lane closures and no opportunity for night working would be incredibly challenging for road users. Why, then, Minister, was your Department blind to the fact that it would descend into chaos for road users? Why was night-time working not bolted on to the contract? Even at this late hour, will you intervene and instruct officials to revisit the contract and have at least some work carried out beyond the rush hour?

Your records will show that I have asked that question on several occasions. I am sorry to say this, but, when MLAs stand up in the House and call for action on an issue of deep concern, we get what feels like a pat on the head. I sat on a council for nearly two decades, and, when we asked officials and staff to deal with issues, on the whole they were actioned. Therefore, I have to ask this: who is in charge of this place? Is it you, Minister, or is it your officials?

This is your opportunity to let the people of Ballykelly, Greysteel, Limavady, Eglinton, Londonderry and everywhere in between know that you are listening to their concerns, their pleas and their frustration. I really hope that lessons are learned from the project. It is the template of all templates on how not to do roadworks on incredibly busy stretches of the road network.

I will end by saying that I am not someone who plays a lot of low politics in this place, and I am sure that you will recognise that, Minister. However, your party often tries to tell the House that the economy of the north-west is vital and that your party is driving the big changes in the Assembly, but I am afraid that the only thing being driven here is road users being driven round the bend.

Mr McGuigan: I thank the Member for securing the Adjournment debate. I was elected not in East Derry but in North Antrim. My constituency, however, ends on one side of Kilrea Bridge, so it is an issue that has had an impact on my constituents' daily lives, be that in going to their places of work, taking their children to school or engaging in their day-to-day business. I should declare an interest, as I use the road a lot to travel to see my father in Swatragh and to do other things across the bridge in Kilrea. I therefore understand the impact that the disruption has had.

I cannot disagree with anything that Maurice Bradley said. The bridge was closed in September 2025 after the Department found structural issues. That caused an awful lot of disruption and a 20-to-25-mile diversion. I represent Portglenone. Having engaged with businesses there and seen it with my own eyes, I became aware of the added traffic disruption there. We all breathed a sigh of relief when, owing to the Department's efforts, the bridge was reopened temporarily to most vehicles, with the exception of heavy vehicles. That has reduced a good proportion of the disruption.

As other Members have said, there is still a level of disruption, however. Businesses in Kilrea suffered over the Christmas period, when it definitely had an impact, and there was some disruption to school transport. A number of parents contacted my constituency office about that. Maurice Bradley clearly articulated the problem of trying to look after historical structures while making progress. The Kilrea Bridge was built in 1783, and nobody is questioning the fact that the volume of traffic has increased substantially since then. Given the increased volume of traffic, the local community is campaigning for a new bridge as a desired outcome. As well as the recent disruption, there was a lesser case of disruption not that long ago. The local community is concerned about an increase in the number of times that they will be disrupted.

My council colleagues have raised a number of issues and worked cross-party to ensure that the potential for a new bridge in Kilrea is prioritised and added to the local development plan and the local transport plan. That is a good step, allowing the potential for a new bridge to be formally assessed and costed before being included in the council's local plans. I do not think that there are any sticking points that would prevent the Minister and the Department from taking it forward.

I welcome the steps that are being taken. I agree with the other MLAs who have complimented the Department on keeping us up to date after the initial phase. I get weekly emails, and there is regular contact, so we are kept well up to date. We are told that the bridge is on track to be fully reopened in mid-February. Hopefully, the Minister will confirm that that is the case. The local campaign for progress towards having something more permanent down the line is something that I wholeheartedly support.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I am now being geographical about this. I call Timothy Gaston.

Mr Gaston: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The debate focuses on issues in East Londonderry, but North Antrim is ideally placed, as it runs into East Londonderry. I thank Cara Hunter for securing the Adjournment debate, as it gives me the opportunity to raise the issue of the Kilrea Bridge, the closure of which on 20 September has had quite an impact on my constituents and local businesses.

We have heard in the debate that the bridge has been partially reopened, with a full reopening to heavy vehicles scheduled for the middle of February. The full closure of the bridge has severed the ties between East Londonderry and North Antrim and stopped a lot of trade passing over the Bann. The takings for one business in my constituency, a small retail offering located on the Craigs Road, have dropped by £800 a day. For a small business, that is a massive drop in sales. To date, as far as I know, no Department has stepped forward to say, "Listen, we're taking responsibility for this. We're going to compensate you for the drop in sales". Likewise, on the Kilrea side of the closure, many businesses tell me that they have dropped by 50%. That impacted on them the whole way up to Christmas, and it will leave a lasting impact on their viability. Take, for example, the renowned Kilrea Livestock Mart: it lost all of its trade from County Antrim because of the closure.

I want to focus the Minister on what she will do about this. What is the plan? The bridge is a listed structure. It was built in 1883. It is outdated, and it is only a single track. My goodness, given the amount of traffic coming across it each day, we must look in the long term at a new bridge. We have a bridge in Portglenone and a bridge in Agivey. What happened when the Kilrea Bridge closed? All of the traffic had to go on each side, which brought the town of Portglenone in my constituency to a standstill on many days. Yes, DFI had to put in temporary measures to stop on-street parking, but the knock-on effect of the Kilrea Bridge closure was gridlock in Portglenone. Many commuters and many people who live in the town were put out by that. We must look to the future and press the Minister on what she will do about this. I want the old bridge to be retained, but you have to focus on putting in a new bridge in Kilrea that meets the needs of 2026 and into the future.

The interface between County Antrim and County Londonderry cannot be left in its current disarray. Who is to say that the structural defects will not come back in the near future? I want to hear from the Minister today on her short-, medium- and long-term plans. The long-term plan must be a new bridge at Kilrea to ensure that, if the defects come back, we are already in the planning phase. Indeed, if you are planning a new bridge, I want to know the time frame within which you see it being in place.

It is over to the Minister. The people of North Antrim and East Londonderry want to know your plans for the bridge.

Mr Stewart: I thank the Member for East Londonderry for securing the Adjournment debate. As you will be aware, I am also not a Member for East Londonderry. It is rare that I leave my bubble of East Antrim, but I am pleased today to speak on this issue in East Londonderry, particularly Ballykelly and Kilrea. I am grateful to my party colleagues in the area, Councillor Richard Holmes and Glen Miller, and some local constituents for giving me an insight into the subject. I am sure that they will look forward to the Minister's response and anything that comes from the debate today.

I will begin by looking at Ballykelly and the A2 Clooney Road. The active travel scheme between Ballykelly and Greysteel, announced as a £2·6 million project in late 2024, was intended to deliver real benefits, with resurfacing of the carriageway and improvement of the facilities for pedestrians and cyclists. However, the project has been plagued with delays and disruption. Originally expected to take 33 weeks, it has now been extended into early 2026, and there has been a £600,000 overspend, bringing the total cost, I understand, to £3·2 million. Temporary traffic-management systems, including off-peak lane closures, have led to severe congestion. Other Members have mentioned that. What was originally a 10-minute journey through the village can now take up to 45 minutes or an hour, with drivers reporting standstill conditions. We all know how frustrating that is.

Local businesses have suffered as a result. Rosemary Wright, who owns the Ashburn Image salon in Eglinton, has said that the delays have caused a massive loss, with customers late for appointments, staff delayed and income reduced. That is the experience of just one local business but also, I am sure, of many others. The inconveniences are not minor, and they have major economic and social consequences for that community. Many residents have also questioned whether the new pedestrian and cycle pathway will see much use, and it will be interesting to see the analysis on that.

Concerns have been raised about the upkeep of the paths to ensure safe passage for cyclists, for example. It may be that the only tangible benefit will end up being the resurfacing of the main road at considerable cost and disruption. This case illustrates the urgent need for stronger project management, better communication with the public and local elected reps, and realistic planning so that worthwhile goals do not just result in unnecessary hardship and delays for residents and businesses alike.

People in Kilrea face a different yet equally challenging picture. Councillor Richard Holmes, my colleague for that area, notes the recent closure of the Kilrea Bridge due to maintenance issues and recognises the detrimental impact on local businesses, commuters and the surrounding area. The Kilrea Bridge was, I believe, opened in 1783, which is remarkable. It is a remarkably old bridge. I believe that William Pitt was Prime Minister at the time it was opened, and it is still going strong, standing the test of time. We must acknowledge, however, that a single-lane 18th-century bridge cannot carry the weight and cope with the demands of 21st-century transport. Of the seven vehicle bridges that cross the Lower Bann, four fall within East Londonderry, as I understand. Whilst others such as the Sandelford Bridge have been replaced or upgraded in recent years, the Kilrea Bridge remains largely unchanged.

The recent closures have exposed just how vulnerable the situation there has become. Failures to coordinate recent maintenance works with existing plans from 2022 have had a crippling effect on local trade and daily life. That has underscored an over-reliance on traffic road management.

There are many points to be raised, and I think that constituents in the area will be looking forward to hearing from the Minister. I thank the Member for securing the debate and look forward to the Minister's responses.

Mr McReynolds: As a member of the Infrastructure Committee, I welcome the opportunity to acknowledge the road infrastructure issues at Ballykelly and Kilrea. I thank the constituency MLAs for their contributions and insight into the Adjournment debate. I am an East Belfast MLA, so I have taken instruction from colleagues and elected reps from the area.

The Infrastructure Committee continues to hear about repeated delays in road infrastructure works, which cause significant frustration to road users whilst affecting road safety and journeys for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. Yesterday, it was reported that there has already been an overspend on this project, whilst creating an extended impact on businesses and locals trying to go about their day, as mentioned by my Infrastructure Committee colleague Mr Stewart. From the outset of major projects, what we need from the Department are clear information and timelines to ensure that obstruction is kept to a minimum. I welcome the fact that the Minister for Infrastructure has made herself available for the debate.

As chair of the all-party group on active travel and road safety, I am in full support of the implementation of active travel routes. However, I do question the prioritisation of routes. That is why I have worked closely with the active travel community to ensure that propensity to cycle is incorporated in rolling out routes for maximum benefit and uptake. The best way to encourage active travel is, first, to ensure safety in places where we know that the routes are more likely to be used. Unfortunately, my difficulty in the justification of such a major scheme creating such significant disruption is that, to my knowledge, no cycling or pedestrian count surveys were undertaken, so little is known about the potential uptake of a route that is causing much grievance for residents. That only adds to the dissatisfaction when the works are complete and the benefits are not immediately visible. As Ms Hunter said, that is why the Department must communicate transparently with locals to ensure appropriate traffic management so that the impact is limited. We saw something similar in my East Belfast constituency during the introduction of the Glider. Significant disruption was caused, leading to posters with slightly colourful language appearing in some shops. Thankfully, I have not seen one of those in years, and the Glider is now simply part of the furniture, bridging east and west Belfast, with passenger journeys up, and active travel projects such as the Connswater community greenway now established and thriving just down the road from my constituency office.

Active travel brings so much to each community where we can implement it. However, strategic planning and execution by the Department must be timely and cost-effective. I encourage the Minister to ensure that every penny spent on active travel is proven to be a conduit for progress rather than a guessing game for success. I look forward to her feedback today.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, I look forward to hearing you for up to 10 minutes.

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

I thank Cara Hunter for initiating this important debate on roads infrastructure in East Derry, particularly in Ballykelly and Kilrea. I know that it is an important issue for all the representatives of those areas who have spoken in the debate and, indeed, for elected representatives on the council. I have received a significant volume of correspondence. I do not, for one second, underestimate the frustration and disruption that the roadworks have caused. I have listened intently to Members' contributions. I have heard loud and clear the concerns about road infrastructure in East Derry, particularly in Ballykelly and Kilrea. I want you all to be reassured, and your constituents to be reassured, that we have been taking that on board and doing the best that we can to try to address the challenges that have emerged.

As Members will know, investing in new roads and improving and maintaining roads is critical to enabling us to ensure the safe movement of people and goods, allow the growth of our economy and connect our communities. I stress that, here in the North, we can have whatever quality of road that we want if we can get the right funding. Without that funding, roads will continue to deteriorate, pose a safety risk and impede economic movement. As is well rehearsed in the Chamber — I feel as though I have been here for every Adjournment debate in the past while to talk about this — the Budget that the Executive receive still falls well short of what is needed from London. We do not have the funding to do everything that we would like to do or, in fact, that we need to do. Therefore, prioritisation is required.

In this case, it is positive investment. Once it is completed, the local area will really benefit from it. I completely understand the frustrations and inconvenience that it has caused. Members have articulated that extremely well in the debate. I really appreciate the tone of the debate, because I know how difficult it is and has been for the past number of months, particularly as people and communities rely so much on the road network to do business, go to work, get to and from school, get to healthcare appointments and connect with one another. The value of our infrastructure cannot be overstated. I will continue to work with my Executive colleagues to ensure that we get appropriate investment to continue with improvements such as that to enhance the quality of our road network.

As Members will know, in June 2025, I launched the draft transport strategy for public consultation. Officials are analysing the responses. We will finalise the transport strategy for anticipated publication later this year. It sets out the long-term vision along with my strategic goals for the region, whilst the new suite of local transport plans that are also in development provides a more detailed and focused understanding of the measures that are proposed for specific plan locations. That is relevant because the Causeway Coast and Glens local transport plan covers Ballykelly and Kilrea, and it will provide the framework for local transport policy and investment decisions up to 2035. That plan is being developed in close alignment with the council's local development plan and, as such, is at an early stage. That coordinated approach ensures better integration between transport and land use planning, ensuring that new development is well connected, encourages investment and promotes sustainable and coordinated growth across the area. The plan will address key local transport issues, many of which have been highlighted in the debate, including local bus services, the road network and parking provision. In parallel, the regional strategic transport plan is being developed. That will set out proposals for the strategic road network for the next 10 years and include rail, interurban bus routes and park-and-ride sites. Both plans remain in development. Opportunities for public input will be available during the public consultation phase. All feedback on the proposals will be welcome at that time. That will provide an opportunity to comment specifically on any future proposals for Ballykelly and Kilrea.

Recently, I announced progress that has been made on the six active travel signature schemes, including the Coleraine to Portstewart and Bellarena to Bishop's Gate schemes in the East Derry constituency. My officials are in regular contact with Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council and Derry City and Strabane District Council to support delivery of their greenway priorities. The active travel improvements on the A2 Clooney Road between Ballykelly and Greysteel are part of my commitment to enhance and expand our active travel network across the North. It was first listed by council back in 2021. Local engagement took place in 2021 and 2022 under the then Minister, Nichola Mallon.

On completion, the scheme will provide significantly enhanced cycling and pedestrian facilities between Ballykelly and Greysteel. It is part of my Department's long-term strategic plan for greenways, which will improve active travel facilities on the north coast for the benefit of the local community. It will also enhance the local tourism offering.

Members will be aware that the scheme is nearing completion. Resurfacing works commenced on 19 January and are expected to take approximately two weeks, subject to weather conditions. Members will appreciate, particularly given the weather that we have experienced over the past 24 hours, that there are things that are beyond our control that can impact on end dates. It is anticipated that the scheme will be substantially complete by the end of February 2026, with no further phases planned on the section thereafter. It has to be said, however, that, with the delivery of a scheme of that nature and scale, it is inevitable that there will be traffic delays. I am not trying to underestimate or underplay the significance of those delays — there has been huge disruption — but the scheme is complex. Alan Robinson mentioned the Sydenham bypass, but we cannot compare the two schemes; they are not like for like. The Sydenham bypass work was a resurfacing scheme, while the scheme that we are talking about required a lot of additional work, such as road widening.

Members asked about the ability to do the works off peak or through the night. The contractor has, where possible and to the best of its ability, done off-peak work, but I recognise that, as there are residents along the route, night-time working may not always be a viable option. My Department has worked closely with the contractor to try to keep it to a minimum, but I fully appreciate that delays on the road network can be frustrating. The examples that Members have given really highlight just how much the work has impacted on the local community and local businesses. I ask the public to continue to be patient and understanding, as best they can: they have been extremely patient to date, but I hope that we will see the completion of the work in the next few weeks.

Members also asked about the time that it has taken to complete the scheme. I think that it has taken around 12 months. It started just before I came into post. There were some interruptions to the scheme because of the Open and the Foyle Cup. We took decisions to try to ensure that traffic kept moving during those major events. Likewise, there is a Christmas embargo period: roadworks are embargoed until the Christmas period ends. All those things have also had an impact on timelines, which I appreciate has prolonged the inconvenience for people who live in the area.

Members highlighted the additional spend. The cost of the works has increased from £2·6 million to approximately £3·2 million, which is attributed mainly to the future-proofing of the works, including the provision of street light ducting, drainage improvements and additional works at Faughanvale Bridge. Some additional costs had to be incurred for the increased traffic management measures. Although those additional works were not included in the original scheme, it was efficient to progress them as part of the scheme in order to avoid further disruption at a later date. If the scope of a project changes, it is inevitable that costs increase. I would like to think, however, that Members would agree that, rather than adding further time to the scheme, it made sense to do that work at the same time as the existing work.

As road safety continues to be a key priority, I am committed to ensuring that all road users can travel safely and with confidence. The road safety strategy to 2030 is important for refocusing minds and energy on creating safe roads, safe vehicles and safe people. The Department continues to deliver a programme of priority targeted road safety interventions through the local transport and safety measures programme, which helps to progress improvements across the road network. Requests for local safety measures and improvements to the network, including the provision of traffic signals and road improvement schemes, are assessed in line with my Department's current policies and guidance, and all works are subject to prioritisation and budget availability.

The Kilrea Bridge is another key area of the work and has had a significant impact. As Members know, in the interests of public safety, officials took the decision to close the Kilrea Bridge on the Bann Road on 20 September last year, due to extensive cracking on a retaining wall at the south-west end of the bridge. Officials worked at pace to develop a solution —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, do you have much more?

Ms Kimmins: No. I am nearly finished. I will just finish that point.

Officials worked at pace to develop a solution to stabilise the structure, and, following an accelerated procurement exercise, works commenced on-site on Monday 10 November. To mitigate the impact as best we could, temporary supports were put in place that allowed the bridge to open to cars and light vehicles on Saturday 6 December. I am pleased to confirm that work is progressing as planned, with the road on track to fully reopen to all traffic by mid February. However, as Members have mentioned, I am aware that the council recently passed a motion to request that a new bridge be considered as part of its local development plan. The framework for making new transport policy and investment decisions for the council area is the Causeway Coast and Glens local transport plan that I referred to earlier.

In closing, I thank Cara Hunter for securing the Adjournment debate and all Members for their contributions. I cannot reiterate enough the value of our infrastructure and how important it is. Tonight's debate has really highlighted that. I also thank Maurice Bradley for his comments on the information and communication that has happened and the work of officials and staff on the ground. We are trying extremely hard to minimise the impact of the work, but we recognise that it has been disruptive and a big inconvenience for people. However, we hope that you can bear with us and that we see the completion of both in the coming weeks. Thank you very much.