Official Report: Tuesday 17 February 2026

Ms Sheerin: Maidin mhaith daoibh.

I take the opportunity this morning to pay tribute to a school in my constituency, which is very special and close to my heart, because it is the one that I attended: St Colm's High School in Ballinascreen. Many of you may have noticed the feature on 'BBC Newsline' last week on a fantastic pilot programme that the school is involved in. As part of the pilot, three OT students from Ulster University work in the school with pupils, particularly on mental health and anxiety, helping them to identify the physical manifestation of worry and anxiety in themselves and teaching them coping mechanisms and strategies to deal with that. As was referred in the piece on 'BBC Newsline' last week, the students who got involved all felt that it was really worthwhile and of great benefit.

Forward-thinking and innovative practices are nothing strange or startling at St Colm's. It is a small school, but it is always leading the way, looking at new ways of doing things and how to improve life for the school community. As Members, we will all have had experience of schools coming to us on the issues of mental health and anxiety and the new challenges that they have to navigate as these modern times wear on. The pilot initiative has been really worthwhile initiative.

Just before Christmas, I had the pleasure of attending the St Colm's career fair, which is now an annual event that brings together all the local businesses and shows pupils the different career opportunities that are open to them. It provides the local businesses with access to the brilliant new talent that is on their doorsteps. That is another example of the school community working with local organisations.

The pilot is a result of Thrive Sperrins, which is led by Workspace in collaboration with the Northern Health and Social Care Trust, partnering with Ulster University to bring in the OT students, providing them with valuable work experience and adding benefit to the lives of pupils and teachers alike. I congratulate everybody involved at St Colm's, particularly Miss McAllister and the leadership team there, on the fantastic work that they are doing, and I urge everyone to believe and achieve.

Mr Wilson: I take this opportunity to welcome the unlocking of funding by the Education Minister, Paul Givan, under the curriculum-led capital programme to secure a new synthetic sports pitch for Tandragee Junior High School. This is, of course, a welcome development, and it follows the decision by the Education Minister to commit to a new-build project for the school. It is exciting news for Tandragee Junior High School. I am a past pupil of the school who, on many a wet afternoon, played on a muddy grass pitch. The vision of a new, all-purpose, synthetic surface is a real game changer for the school.

It is also important that progress continues to be made on forward planning for the new build, which will be an exciting new resource. The securing of a new build for Tandragee Junior High School and the new commitment by the Minister for a synthetic sports pitch represent a real and purposeful investment in education provision in the area. It is certainly a seal of approval for the well-cherished Dickson plan that Tandragee Junior High School so ably caters for.

With investment secured for that specific site in Tandragee, as an MLA for Newry and Armagh, I am also very committed to continuing to lobby for Markethill High School. There is a real and pressing need for investment in that site on the Mowhan Road. Markethill High School continues to perform impressively as an education provider. The Minister has visited the school on a number of occasions, and I have been in communication with him again in recent days on continuing work on that development requirement. Markethill High School deserves investment, and I will continue to make the case for that. The school is highly cherished in the town and, indeed, for miles around. It is a top-quality provider, and the principal, Mr Berry, and all the staff work tirelessly to make the educational journey for pupils inspiring and informative, which is seen in the consistent results of the pupils. That enthusiasm and success needs to be rewarded with investment in the site. I will continue to make the case to the Minister for that important resource in the days ahead.

Mr Speaker: Our clocks are not working quite right, but I will be keeping an eye on the three minutes.

Mr Donnelly: I rise to raise the issue of ambulance handover times. In January last year, the Minister of Health was called before an urgent meeting of the Health Committee amid sustained pressures on the health service that winter. There, he talked about how his winter preparedness plan for this year would be better. It started with a blank page, and it was to involve big discussions with experts about how we reduce pressure on the health service. That is how we were supposed to move forward.

One of the focus areas was about reducing ambulance handover waits to two hours. Yet, here we are, a year later, having seen that an ambulance waited outside the Ulster Hospital for 19 hours and four minutes before the patient was admitted. That is not a statistic in isolation: it is a person in pain and distress, waiting almost an entire day and night in the back of a vehicle before even getting in the door of an emergency department. In that same month, 40% of ambulance arrivals at the Ulster Hospital waited longer than two hours. The average handover time there was two hours and 28 minutes. The longest wait at the Causeway Hospital exceeded 16 hours, and, at Antrim Area Hospital and Craigavon Area Hospital, it was more than 15 hours. Across Northern Ireland, emergency departments remain under constant pressure.

In his winter preparedness plan, the Minister set a target that, by the start of December, handover should not exceed two hours; yet, in several hospitals, a quarter of arrivals or more breached that standard. Last year, Northern Ireland's Comptroller and Auditor General reported that ambulance handover delays led to thousands of incidents of potential harm. Those delays carry serious risk.

Let me be clear: this is not a criticism of front-line staff. Ambulance crews and emergency department teams are working in extremely challenging conditions for sustained periods. Ambulance handover delays are a symptom of deeper system blockages. When inpatient beds are full, discharge is delayed and community services are overstretched, the pressure builds at the hospital front door. Ambulances become holding areas because there is nowhere else for patients to go.

We need more than winter plans and workshops. We need to remove the blockages in patient flow. We need proper workforce planning and a meaningful expansion of care in the community to prevent avoidable admissions and support timely discharge. No one should ever spend 19 hours in the back of an ambulance. No paramedic crew should spend its entire shift parked outside an emergency department, and no patient or their family should endure that uncertainty. Delay means fewer ambulances on the road answering calls, and it backs up an already dangerously overstretched system, meaning that those in dire need are waiting longer and are at risk of further harm. The figures should serve as a wake-up call. Managing pressure is not enough: we must fix the structural problems that create it.

Ms McLaughlin: I am proud to recognise an organisation that has stood beside generations of individuals and families through some of the most difficult moments in their lives. This year marks the 50th anniversary of the Northlands centre in Derry. For half a century, it has carried a simple but life-changing message: recovery is possible, people matter and no one should face addiction alone.

What began in the 1970s as an education initiative has grown into something far greater. Northlands became a community of support and, ultimately, a regional treatment centre that has helped people from across the North. Its work has not only transformed lives but challenged the shame and stigma that so often surround addiction. It has replaced silence with understanding and brought hope to those who were in despair.

In the city that I represent, it is difficult to find a family whose story has not in some way been touched by the care, professionalism and humanity that is offered there. For many, a second chance in life can be traced directly back to the support that they received in the Northlands centre. While anniversaries are rightly moments of celebration, they must also be moments of reflection. The demand for addiction services is rising, substances are evolving and the challenges facing families are becoming more complex and more urgent.

Those working on the front line are clear in their message: without additional capacity, need will outstrip provision. If we are serious about valuing recovery, we must be serious about investing in it. That requires a joined-up commitment to ensure that the north-west has a fully supported, properly resourced residential addiction treatment centre that is capable of meeting present and future needs. The people who seek help are not statistics but our neighbours, our friends, our sons and our daughters. They deserve more than recognition. They deserve action that matches the courage it takes for them to ask for help.

As we mark 50 years of extraordinary service, I extend my sincere thanks to Tommy and all the staff, volunteers and everyone who has sustained the vital work at Northlands. I also urge the Minister of Health to match that determination so that hope and recovery remain available to every family who need it in the decades ahead.

Ms Ferguson: This Friday, 20 February, marks World Day of Social Justice. It is not just a date in the calendar but a call for action, and it reminds us that poverty and inequality are not inevitable but problems that we can solve together, with the right focus and effort. It is the day on which we commit to delivering a society for all by tackling the systemic issues, including poverty and all forms of inequality and discrimination, to deliver a decent standard of living for all.

A reliable income and secure housing are fundamental. I commend Minister Archibald for her continued dedication to delivering the biggest upgrade of our employment legislation since the Good Friday Agreement. It will strengthen terms, pay and benefits, voice and representation and work-life balance. We must have the same ambition and drive to end housing inequality. Our people need to see and feel a real sense of urgency over the proposed reform of the Housing Executive to ensure that it can deliver social housing at scale, as it is so desperately needed in our communities. We need new plans or innovative suggestions to regulate and improve housing standards in the social and private rented sectors, aside from the changes made through the Private Tenancies Act 2022. We need to prioritise and deliver timely repairs and enforcement mechanisms for all failures to address substandard housing conditions. Additionally, there is no existing enforcement body to regulate those working under the auspices of estates, sales and lettings here, and that leaves a concerning gap in streamlining standards and safeguarding students, workers and families against rogue traders and unacceptable charges.

This week, in the run-up to World Day of Social Justice on Friday, I urge the Department for Communities to place a greater focus on legislative change to improve tenant safety and property conditions and to provide an urgent update to the Assembly on the proposed reform of the Housing Executive. Social housing should be viewed as a tool for social justice and equality. Access to safe and affordable housing levels the playing field for families across our communities. It also helps break the cycle of poverty and lays the foundation to improve outcomes.

Ms Brownlee: Across Northern Ireland, countless families still carry the scars of violence. Whether physical or emotional, the scars are permanent, and families' lives have been changed forever by acts of evil that no community should ever have to endure. Too often, their suffering has been overlooked, ignored or spoken about as if it were some distant memory, but, for victims and survivors, it is very much real, lived experience. Today, we see so many attempts to airbrush history: brazen attempts to rewrite the horrors of the past and glorify the actions of the IRA. My party has always been resolute in saying that there was always an alternative and that all violence is wrong.

Groups such as the Wolfe Tones are conditioning our young people to see terrorism as normal. Songs such as 'Celtic Symphony', 'Come Out Ye Black & Tans' and 'Rifles of the I.R.A' and chants of "Ooh ahh, up the 'RA" should not be the norm in any modern-day society.

Sammy Heenan, a well-respected victims' campaigner, has rightly condemned the advertising of the upcoming Wolfe Tones concert at the SSE Arena on radio stations across Northern Ireland this week. Recalling the harrowing events of May 1985, when his father, William, was shot dead by the Provisional IRA outside his home in County Down, Sammy said:

The advertisement of those groups on national radio causes enormous hurt and retraumatises the victims of terrorism. Today, we call on media outlets and venues such as the SSE to have consideration for victims and survivors. Advertising campaigns that promote ticket sales and events designed to romanticise the actions of the IRA are an affront to all those who have suffered at the hands of terrorism.

Today, we also remember the innocent victims of the bombing at La Mon, 48 years ago. We must never forget the suffering that the IRA has inflicted on Northern Ireland. My party will always stand with the innocent victims and survivors of terrorism.

Ms Egan: I will highlight the experiences of individuals in the family courts system and, primarily, the fact that ensuring the welfare of children and victims of domestic abuse is paramount. Since I joined the Justice Committee over a year ago, constituents of mine in North Down and others from across Northern Ireland have reached out to me for help — help in keeping themselves and their loved ones safe in an incredibly adversarial process.

Responsibility for family law and its processes in Northern Ireland is something that, I sincerely believe, needs to be demystified. The Department of Finance has responsibility for private family law, the Department of Health has responsibility for public family law, and the Lady Chief Justice is responsible for the proper functioning of the courts and the administration of justice. That can create great difficulties for those who engage in such matters and who wish to raise concerns and bring about change.

So much could be said about the process; honestly, much of what I have been told by those who are going through the system has been heartbreaking and of deep concern. There are clear and emerging high-level themes, including the need for the voices of the children involved to be heard more; the lack of information-sharing between civil and criminal courts, particularly in child contact proceedings where there are allegations of domestic abuse; the lack of openness and transparency around family court processes; and the experience of many victims who feel retraumatised, through family court proceedings, by post-separation abuse.

In December, the office of the Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime launched an incredibly useful report: 'Totally Invisible'. It focused on the experiences of domestic abuse victims and children who engage with family courts in Northern Ireland. The report includes the lived experiences of victims and survivors of domestic abuse, and, from that, the commissioner designate developed a really worthwhile set of recommendations. The proposals include presumptions against contact with children in cases of domestic abuse; mandatory training on domestic violence and abuse for all members of the judiciary and legal professions; and reform of the family courts system as a whole. Last week, I met the commissioner designate, Geraldine Hanna, who informed me that her office is now taking forward a task and finish group with buy-in from the Health, Justice and Finance Departments to establish terms of reference and a business case for a pilot on how to work family courts differently. I am also aware that the Lady Chief Justice issued new guidance in that area last June.

That work is incredibly important and positive, and we cannot and must not forget why it has to happen. It is vital to protect parents who have been subject to domestic violence and who are simply trying to keep themselves and their children safe in the toughest circumstances.

Mr McHugh: Déanfar Lá Idirnáisiúnta na Máthairtheangacha a cheiliúradh an deireadh seachtaine seo. Leagfar béim i mbliana ar ról an aosa óig i múnlú an oideachais ilteangaigh.

Tuairiscítear nach bhfuil rochtain ag 40% de dhaonra an domhain ar oideachas i dteanga a labhraíonn siad nó a thuigeann siad. Tá a mhalairt d’fhadhb ag ár dteanga dhúchais in Éirinn: tá ró-éileamh ar an Ghaelscolaíocht, agus is í an Ghaelscolaíocht an earnáil oideachais is mó fás sa Tuaisceart. Tá sin amhlaidh in ainneoin go ndearnadh ionsaithe ar ár dteanga dhúchais ar feadh na gcéadta bliain lena cur den tsaol.

Tugann teangacha dúchais léargas ar leith dúinn ar an tír, agus nascann siad muid léi; tá siad fite fuaite inár gcultúr, agus tá ról tábhachtach le himirt acu i bhforbairt ár bhféiniúlachta. Táthar á thuar go rachaidh idir 50% agus 90% de theangacha dúchais i léig faoi cheann 100 eile bliain. Tuairiscítear go dtéann teanga dhúchais amháin in éag i gceann gach aon choicíse mar gheall ar an choilíneachas nó de bharr na dteangacha idirnáisiúnta a tháinig chun cinn de dheasca an choilíneachais. Ach is léir gur theip ar na cumhachtaí coilíneachta an teanga a scriosadh in Éirinn: má tá teangacha eile dúchais ar fud an domhain ag dul in éag, tá an Ghaeilge ag fás léi.

Tháinig an Ghaeilge slán ón scrios sin, mar gheall ar iarrachtaí a rinne muidne ár dteanga dhúchais a athbheochan, iarrachtaí ar éirigh go maith leo. Ar na hiarrachtaí sin, bhí: bunú Chonradh na Gaeilge sa bhliain 1893; obair Dhúbhghlais de Híde agus Phádraig Mhic Phiarais; agus foghlaim na Gaeilge i gcásanna na Ceise Fada — iad uilig ag cur le hathbheochan atá faoi lán seoil anois. Ceapadh Coimisinéir Gaeilge le déanaí, céim ollmhór chun tosaigh i gcaomhnú agus i gcur chun cinn ár dteanga.

Ag seo teachtaireacht shoiléir Lá Idirnáisiúnta na Máthairtheangacha: beatha teanga í a labhairt.

Ms Forsythe: In 2025, the consultation on my proposed Member's Bill on women and girls in sport in Northern Ireland showed strong backing for the need for increased protections in sport here. There is a consistent demand for fairness, safety, equality and better participation and representation of women and girls in sport in Northern Ireland.

Women's rights have been fought for long and hard, and there is still some way to go. The current battles are not just the traditional misogynistic ones but include increased attacks from the woke agenda. Women deserve better than that. I was incredibly disappointed at the European Parliament's recent decision, when it refused to anchor pregnancy to biological sex. That is shocking and shows a huge shift in how sex is treated in law. On 12 February, the European Parliament adopted a resolution, by a vote of 340 to 141, calling on EU institutions and member states to guarantee the full recognition of trans women as women in EU policy and law. An amendment was then brought stating that only biological women can become pregnant. That was defeated, with 233 Members of the European Parliament voting against it. Being pregnant and being a mother is a privilege. As a mother of three, I find that vote incredibly offensive and shocking.

Whilst the vote does not change any treaties or mean that there will be any immediate changes in our laws, it does shape Commission priorities and influences how equality frameworks are interpreted. That vote shifts the line between biology and the law. We need to be very mindful of what that could mean for us all. Reproductive health policy, medical research, crime data, sports eligibility, prison placement and sex-segregated protections all require clarity about biological sex. In sport, those categories determine competitive fairness. In prisons and female-only shelters, they affect safety. The vote is a clear signal that biology itself is negotiable in statutory language. That has serious and worrying consequences. When a legislature will not state who can become pregnant, it is moved beyond accommodation into redefinition. Compassion does not require ambiguity in law. What will it be next? Will we see an attempt to rewrite simple biology in our school curriculums?

Once again, women and our rights are under attack. Where is the common sense in all this? Only biological women can be pregnant. The DUP stands strongly to represent common sense and women on those issues.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Gaston: Since my arrival at Stormont, I have used my position on the Executive Office Committee to attempt to turn the spotlight on to the role of the Irish Republic in facilitating and sustaining 30 years of republican terrorism in Northern Ireland. The facts are undeniable. The arms trial of 1970 exposed something of Dublin's role in the formation and arming of the IRA, yet that did not damage the careers of those who were involved. For example, Charles Haughey went on to become the Irish Prime Minister in spite of having to resign from the Cabinet due to his role in the affair. House of Commons answers show that, between 1973 and 1997, there were at least 110 extradition requests made to the Irish Republic by the UK. Just eight were successful.

Before the shipments from Libya and the introduction of Semtex, the vast majority of IRA bombs were made with Irish industrial explosives. The IRA had an endless supply of bomb-making material from the South; something with which Dublin did not concern itself. A year ago, Kenny Donaldson of the South East Fermanagh Foundation gave evidence to the Executive Office Committee, highlighting that between 550 and 570 murders that were committed during the terrorist campaign had a cross-border element in the planning and/or escape plan of those who were involved.

In spite of that, some in the House say that Dublin's woeful record is not a matter to be discussed at Stormont. You cannot consider victims' issues, get to the truth about what happened during the IRA's years of terror or ever talk about justice unless you face up to the fact that Dublin was an active participant in the terror. A number of Committee members need to recognise that fact. I trust that, as we go into the forward work programme, the Committee will delve into that issue and expose the Irish Republic's role in the terrorism that we have experienced here in Northern Ireland.

Mr Buckley: Often, in the Assembly, Members stand up to speak out for business. Quite often, they stand up to recognise the challenges that businesses face, and rightly so. That means that, when we look at today's headlines, we should all look upon them with disgust to see that there is still paramilitary involvement in Northern Ireland in holding businesses in fear and to ransom for protection money.

It does not matter what hue or section of society such groups purport to come from: it is wrong and dangerous that we have paramilitaries that think that they have control over our business community and can extort them for money for so-called protection whilst the PSNI says that it can do nothing about it. I do not agree with that. I believe that, as an Assembly, we should state clearly that paramilitary influences have no place in our society, regardless of where they come from.

Our businesses should be left to thrive. Our business community should be propped up and should prosper. Businesses pay taxes. Quite often, in this place, we talk about the huge challenges that they continue to face. Many of them, including long-held family businesses, face the threat of extinction. I listened to the headlines today, and it was beyond ridiculous to hear that, in 2026, businesspeople still live in fear of getting a tap on the shoulder about a threat to their personal life, family life or business. I call on the PSNI to show clearly how it will stamp that out of our society, because, certainly, the Assembly will be unified and clear in saying that groups that extort businesses or communities have no place here.

Mr Speaker: I can give you a couple of minutes, Miss Hargey.

Miss Hargey: Thanks very much, Mr Speaker.

Building a world-class healthcare system in a new Ireland would give us a once-in-a-generation opportunity to rethink how we care for one another. At a recent health event that was hosted by Sinn Féin in South Belfast, clinicians, GPs and medical experts delivered a clear message: operating two separate health systems on a small island has led to duplication, siloed working and wasted resources. With just over two million people in the North, our current system is under severe strain. We face an ageing population, workforce shortages and an ongoing loss of staff who are moving south because of better pay and conditions. That is not sustainable.

To protect what we value in healthcare, we need to a critical mass. Population matters. An all-Ireland healthcare system would allow us to pool resources, reduce duplication and negotiate better prices for medicines and equipment. Crucially, it would allow us to invest more in front-line services; in doctors, nurses and social care. For patients, especially those who live in our border communities, it would mean simpler access. They could attend their nearest hospital or GP surgery without having to navigate complex cross-border systems. We already have good cooperation in specialist services, such as cancer and cardiac care, but we now must plan at scale. Serving a population of over seven million people would strengthen our research, training and retention of staff capacities and ultimately produce better outcomes for patients.

Healthcare should never depend on a postcode or income, or on which side of the border you are born. We can take what is good from both systems and design something new. An all-island system with social care at its core would guarantee that care is based on need, not on someone's ability to pay. Everyone across our island deserves the same high standard of care and outcomes.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call the Minister for the Economy, Dr Caoimhe Archibald, to move the Consideration Stage of the Insolvency (Amendment) Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the single amendment for debate. As Members are aware, it is a large Bill, with 121 clauses and four schedules. A single ministerial amendment has been tabled.

In an effort to make the best use of plenary time, at the appropriate points in the Bill, I will seek your permission to group clauses and schedules for the Questions on stand part. However, that does not preclude any Member from speaking to or opposing a clause or schedule standing part of the Bill. If any Member wishes to do so, they can approach the Table or signal their opposition to my request to group the clauses and schedules when I am putting the Question.

The amendment will be debated under the group heading "Technical amendment". I remind Members that, once the debate on the group is complete, the Questions on stand part will be taken at the appropriate points in the Bill. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): We now come to the single group for debate, which, as I explained, is a technical amendment.

Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): I beg to move amendment No 1:

Before I speak to the amendment, I put on record my thanks to the members of the Economy Committee for their helpful scrutiny of the Bill. As you mentioned in your opening remarks, it is a lengthy piece of legislation, with a considerable number of clauses, and relates to procedural issues on insolvency. The legislation, which will ensure that procedures are modernised and fit for purpose, is important for those impacted on by insolvency proceedings.

I put on record my appreciation of the Committee's diligent scrutiny, because, while officials were dealing with some of the Committee's queries, they discovered that there is a minor omission in clause 119(3), which is a consequential amendment clause. The main purpose of clause 119 is to enable my Department to make any changes that are required to existing legislation so that it will align with what is in the Bill once it becomes an Act. My Department will be able to do that by making orders to effect the changes required, which may include the repeal, revocation, amendment or modification of any existing statutory provision that applies in this jurisdiction.

The intention is that all such orders will have to be laid in draft before and approved by the Assembly. The requirement for that is in clause 119(3). However, it has been identified that, as drafted, clause 119(3) is deficient. That is because it is not stated to apply in the case of orders that make changes to Acts of Parliament made at Westminster. Acts of Parliament are primary legislation and can be amended to the extent that they apply in this jurisdiction by an order made under clause 119 powers. Therefore, orders amending Acts of Parliament should be subject to the same form of Assembly control as any other order made under those powers. Accordingly, the amendment that I have tabled will ensure that that is the case. The amendment will do that by inserting the words "or any Act of Parliament" into clause 119(3).

The amendment is important, but it does not involve any change to the Bill policy. I have notified my Executive colleagues about it. The Economy Committee was informed about the need for the amendment in a letter sent to it on 30 October 2025. The Committee formally agreed to clause 119, subject to the amendment being made, when it met on 26 November 2025. That concludes my explanation of why I consider the amendment necessary.

Mr Brett (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Economy): Before I address the amendment, I will, with your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, briefly summarise the Committee's scrutiny of the Bill and outline its support for the Bill's progression today and the amendment tabled in the name of the Minister.

The Insolvency (Amendment) Bill was introduced in the Assembly on 23 June 2025, with the Committee Stage commencing on 1 July. The Assembly agreed on 8 September to extend the Committee Stage until 12 December. We launched our call for evidence on 2 July and received three substantive responses. The Committee took oral evidence on the Bill from the Law Society of Northern Ireland, the Bar of Northern Ireland, the Insolvency Practitioners Association and an insolvency practitioner.

The Committee considered the regulation-making powers in the Bill and reviewed the interaction between the Bill and the European Convention on Human Rights and article 2 of the Windsor framework. The Committee noted that none of the provisions raised particular concerns in regard to their compatibility with the convention or the framework. The Committee deliberated informally on the Bill on 12 November and undertook formal clause-by-clause scrutiny on 26 November. The Committee ordered that its report be published in early December.

The Committee welcomed the Bill's provisions, which are designed to improve efficiency and reduce costs for insolvency proceedings and to bring Northern Ireland into line with England and Wales. The Committee noted the provisions that introduce greater use of virtual creditor meetings, which are designed to reduce costs and streamline processes. Members were concerned that the increasing use of electronic media may be to the disadvantage of some people with limited access to virtual assets. However, the Department set out clearly its assurances on there being robust rules in that regard. The Committee considered other matters in respect of statements of affairs, deemed consent, the assignment of causes of action, petitions for insolvency and bankrupts' homes. The Committee felt that the provisions match those that have been in place in England and Wales for some time and were therefore uncontroversial. The Bill is very lengthy, with many important provisions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the Department for providing a Keeling schedule and for responding in such a timely manner to the number of queries raised by the Committee.

The Committee considered clause 119, which includes powers to make consequential provisions. Clause 119(3) indicates that, where such provisions amend Northern Ireland legislation, draft affirmative resolution shall apply. However, clause 119(4) indicates that any other regulations will be subject to negative resolution.

The Committee felt that the draft affirmative resolution procedure should apply to all the delegated legislative powers associated with clause 119. It is therefore happy to support the amendment standing in the Minister's name.

I thank the Minister and her officials for their engagement with the Committee; in particular, although it is not common practice, I will namecheck Mr Reid for all his dedicated work. In coming back to the Committee with the information that we requested, he has been very dedicated.

The view of the Committee is that we support the amendment in the Minister's name.

Ms McLaughlin: The Bill, although modest in scope, is a necessary and a welcome step towards modernising Northern Ireland's insolvency legislation. The amendment to clause 119 is necessary, and I am happy to support the Bill.

Miss Hargey: At its core, the Bill is about ensuring that the North's insolvency framework remains modern, fair and aligned with best practice. Insolvency law may not always capture the headlines, but it plays a crucial role in underpinning business confidence and supporting economic stability. In an economy such as ours, which is built largely on small to medium-sized enterprises, it is essential that we have a system that works efficiently when businesses encounter financial distress. Not every business difficulty stems from poor management. Many firms have faced extraordinary pressures in recent years from global supply chain disruption to energy price volatility. A responsive and up-to-date insolvency regime is therefore crucial.

The Bill contains important technical amendments that strengthen our legislative framework and ensures greater clarity in the administration of insolvency processes. That clarity benefits not only insolvency practitioners but the courts, employees and business owners, who rely on the system to ensure that it is transparent and predictable. Given the interconnected nature of trade and commerce across these islands, divergence without justification would create unnecessary complexity.

The Bill helps ensure consistency while maintaining our devolved competence. Importantly, effective insolvency legislation is not simply about winding up companies; it is also about rescue and recovery and, where possible, saving jobs. A well-functioning framework can provide viable businesses with the opportunities that they need to resuscitate and protect jobs where possible and, importantly, to create sustainability. That is in the interests of workers and the wider economy. It is essential work, reflecting responsible economic stewardship. In strengthening and refining our insolvency framework, the Bill will contribute to a stable and confident business environment in the North. For those reasons, I am pleased to support it.

Mr Honeyford: This largely technical legislation brings our insolvency framework up to date with legislation in the rest of the UK and across these islands, and that is really welcome. Throughout the legislative process, the key issue for me has been to make sure that we get the balance right. As has been said, nobody wants to find themselves in such circumstances, which can often be as a result of things outside their control. Making sure that people and family homes were protected is core to what Alliance wanted to see in the Bill, as well as protecting businesses and making sure that the debts were also protected. I am therefore content with the balance that has been struck. The Bill must bring clarity and fairness moving forward. That is hard to find in really difficult circumstances, but I think that we have got it.

I thank the Minister and her Department. I scrutinise the Department regularly, and, at times, I feel as though I am hard on it. In this case, however, departmental officials — I will mention Mr Reid, as Phillip did — have been outstanding. In walking us through the detail of the Bill, they have been absolutely first class. They gave us the clarity that we needed and every bit of information that we wanted at any time. They never confused anything. They engaged really constructively. I thank the Department for that. It set an example of how to work with a Committee.

Alliance is pleased to support the Bill and the amendment, and we look forward to seeing the Bill come through.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call the Minister for the Economy to make a winding-up speech.

Dr Archibald: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I am grateful to the Members who contributed to the debate on the amendment. The amendment is a minor one, but it is, nonetheless, important. Agreeing to it will ensure that all orders that effect changes to primary legislation as a consequence of the Bill's passing will be subject to scrutiny and approval by the Assembly.

I note the comments of the Committee Chair and other Members, and I recognise the issues that have been highlighted around the Bill's intent: to simplify and keep up to speed with insolvency processes while, importantly, striking a balance in supporting businesses and others impacted on by insolvency proceedings through what is a difficult and challenging time.

Like other Members, I record my appreciation of the work of officials. It is technical and detailed legislation, and, as I said, it was brought through Committee Stage with diligence. I recognise the work of officials and the Committee in that regard.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Minister, and I thank the Members who spoke in the debate.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Insolvency (Amendment) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

I ask Members to take their ease before we move to the next item.

Mr Gaston: 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 in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. As an amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate.

Timothy, please open the debate on the motion.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I make no secret of the fact that, if Casement Park is built, you will never see me in the stands. I have profound issues with the GAA. Many people in my community share those concerns. When they hear of Casement Park, they do not recall some sporting feat. They remember the murders of Corporals Derek Wood and David Howes. They think of a sport that names clubs after the likes of Kevin Lynch, an INLA terrorist who went to jail not for encouraging fitness but for kneecapping people, denying them the ability to walk. However, this is not a debate about whether Casement Park should exist. It is not a debate about the place of the GAA. It is not a debate about sport, identity or culture. It is a debate about something far more basic: public money, private profit and whether the Northern Ireland taxpayer is to be treated as an unlimited underwriter of a major commercial venue with no share in return.

The Strategic Investment Board (SIB) describes Casement as a flagship capital project — a new stadium with a capacity of around 34,500 and that includes corporate hospitality, conferencing and extensive year-round facilities. That is not simply a sports ground redevelopment; it is a major commercial venue. The motion recognises what everyone now accepts:

The question, therefore, is not whether money will be made; the question is who will benefit from it.

The scale of public funding is enormous and still growing. The project sits within the Executive's regional stadia programme. The Executive endorsed a package of up to £110 million under that programme. Stormont committed £62·5 million as far back as 2011. Now, Westminster has added a further £50 million through financial transactions capital (FTC). The Minister of Finance told the Assembly that that funding could be used only for Casement, that it does not need to be repaid to Treasury and that it comes with no further conditions attached. Public exposure increases, yet there remains no enforceable mechanism to ensure that the taxpayer sees any return. Furthermore, the project is still priced at around £100 million more than the current money available. Therefore, this question becomes unavoidable: if there is a gap, who is expected to close it? The answer, time and time again, is the public purse.

Going beyond that, let us look at the issue of revenue. The Casement Park project literature states:

Revenues are expected. The question is simply this: why should the taxpayer get nothing back when the taxpayer paid so much in?

The motion is not radical: clawback is a standard tool of public finance. The Scottish Government's public finance manual includes charge and clawback conditions as routine safeguards where public funding creates assets capable of generating a return. That is orthodox value-for-money discipline. In 2009, for example, the Scottish Funding Council clawed back £2·88 million from Stow College, which was repaid over several years. We have other real-world precedents. For example, in London, when the publicly funded Olympic stadium was converted for commercial use, the public authority retained a contractual right to share in key commercial income streams, such as naming rights and hospitality revenues. The taxpayer was not left paying the bill while others kept the upside. That is exactly the principle in the motion that I have proposed.

The National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have warned that the Government too often fail to maximise long-term value from major projects. They stress that it is not enough to build an asset; rather, mechanisms must exist to ensure that the intended public value is realised. The motion is not about opposing Casement but about protecting the taxpayer. The amendment, while well-intentioned in its desire to safeguard public investment, ultimately falls short. In referring to current and future constructions, it fails to distinguish between current and future budget provision. It therefore treats budgets that are already allocated and agreed as if they were no different from hypothetical future schemes. That lack of clarity would negatively affect organisations that have already designed business cases for current Stormont-led programmes, having acted in good faith, followed the rules and secured approvals on the basis of criteria that the Departments set. Many current projects have already negotiated funding packages, revenue models and community benefit obligations tailored to their circumstances. I make it clear that the motion relates to moneys not yet planned, allocated or, in the case of Casement, talked up at Executive level, and therefore it provides a clear line in the sand. Unfortunately, the amendment does not make that clear, and, for that reason, I cannot support it.

The proposition is simple: if public money underwrites that stadium and fills the gap, and if non-GAA concerts and fixtures generate substantial commercial profit, it is totally unacceptable and unjustifiable for the public to carry the cost while private bodies retain the reward. That is why we call for a legally enforceable clawback mechanism as a condition of any further public funding in order to return an agreed proportion of net revenues from non-GAA events to the public purse.

The motion calls for fairness, value for money and basic accountability to the taxpayer. I commend it to the House and look forward to the debate.

Mr Carroll: I beg to move the following amendment:

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Gerry, you will have 10 minutes in which to propose the amendment and five minutes in which to make a winding up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes.

Mr Carroll: I declare several interests: most of my family members are members of the GAA; I am, I think, technically still a member of Patrick Sarsfields GAC, although I have not played for many years and was not really much good; and I may be the only Member in the House who is a member of Casement Social Club.

There is no doubt that the Casement Park development has been beset by disaster from the get-go. In more recent years, the role played by unionist Ministers has tended to dominate proceedings. That is not unimportant, but, for me and many others, it is not the full story. Those same parties have been particularly vocal in claiming that public money should not be spent on sports infrastructure at a time when public services have been and are being stripped back in schools, hospitals and elsewhere. Quite often, those same parties supported the stripping back of those services.

There is a story from before, which is not often told in the House or elsewhere: a story that it is hoped that people will forget. I am here to remind people about some of the reasons why we are where we are. The truth is that, if they choose to, Governments can afford to invest in sports and culture as well as in essential services such as health, education and infrastructure. Many would argue that, in the past 20 years or so, they have refused to adequately do both. As a starting point, we should reject the either/or approach that assumes that it should be either sports or education, or either culture or health.

It is worth remembering that we are at this point currently because we were supposed to have a multipurpose sports facility at the Long Kesh site, which would have encompassed all sports, music concerts and other events. That was not built because of the ongoing crisis in unionism. The then First Minister, Peter Robinson, initially agreed to the development of the site, but backed down after being forced to concede to harder-line elements in his party — a familiar story.

Casement Park lies empty because of the disaster that surrounded it and the politics that dominate this place. It is also empty because of the greed that has been shown by the upper echelons of Ulster GAA and by Sinn Féin, who wanted to drive ahead with a 40,000-, 38,000- or 34,000-seater stadium, regardless of what people in the area thought or how they would be impacted on. It is telling that, although a key pillar of Sinn Féin's strategy for the North has been Casement Park, it has been unable to lay a brick there, despite holding the posts of Finance Minister, Economy Minister and First Minister, and having a junior Minister.

Residents of Mooreland, Owenvarragh, Stockmans and the wider Andersonstown area raised concerns about the size and scale of the development that was going to be on their doorstep, and they were denigrated for it; they were called anti-GAA and told to suck it up. I pay tribute to those residents and to the work that they have done not just for their community, which is my community, but for every single one of us. Members in many quarters of the House did their best to bury the health and safety concerns that were raised by people such as Paul Scott and groups such as the Mooreland and Owenvarragh Residents' Association (MORA), whose judicial work in the courts system helped to highlight the dangers of ploughing ahead with a dangerous development that could have resulted in a Hillsborough-type disaster in West Belfast.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: On a point of order, Gerry. Those claims were refuted, so if you continue to make those accusations, I want to put it on the record. Honestly, they were refuted. So if you continue to make those accusations, that is fine.

Mr Carroll: I was quoting what is in the news, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, but I am moving on anyway.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Yeah, do.

Mr Carroll: For many, Patrick Murphy, a journalist for the 'The Irish News', put it well in an article last year, in which he stated:

at Casement in 2011, which:

He claims that the option of 38,000 was never about attracting large numbers to GAA matches but was a GAA "vanity project", to use his words, similar to Páirc Uí Chaoimh in —.

Mr Baker: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: Go ahead.

Mr Baker: Should the GAA and West Belfast not be ambitious and want to have the very best delivered for Casement Park and West Belfast? We could have had the Euros. We could have had something magnificent that would have brought so many people to this wee part of the world, but we fell short of that. You sound almost like Timothy: you are running down West Belfast, Gerry, and it is ridiculous to listen to.

Mr Carroll: That was not meant to be a speech. I will not take lectures from the Member opposite or his party, who ignore residents and their concerns and repeat the mantra of anti-GAA to people who live in West Belfast. It is ridiculous and not true. I will move on.

Look at the example of Páirc Uí Chaoimh in Cork, which is now called SuperValu Páirc Uí Chaoimh. What is the equivalent being proposed for Casement? In the 2013 book, 'GAAconomics: The Secret Life of Money in the GAA', Michael Moynihan discusses how the Celtic tiger led to the GAA's splurging on stadiums that were simply too big. He writes that, of the 26 stadiums in Ireland with a capacity of over 20,000, the GAA owns 23 of them.

Everybody should support the development of Casement Park, despite what was alleged earlier. We always did from our end, but there is a difference between manageable development and overdevelopment, and greed as well, which needs to be challenged. Definitely, in this context, there are effectively two GAAs. There is the one of volunteers and players who break their backs every week to show up to training, help facilitate the training, washing the kits week in and week out, driving teams to matches and playing on the pitch in rain, hail or shine. That should be contrasted with the upper echelons of the GAA, who refuse to adequately invest in grassroots GAA but also blindly push a corporate vision of Casement Park and, not to mention, have an ostrich approach to the GAA's association with Allianz as well. Casement Park was, as mentioned, a New Decade, New Approach commitment but, at this stage, it does not look as though it is going to be finished by the end of this decade.

In my amendment, the principle of venues that host non-sporting events paying money back into the public purse when they have received a significant amount of public money for their development is a worthwhile principle and an agreeable one. My concern, though, with the motion — hence the amendment — is that it singles out the GAA exclusively. My amendment outlines that the same should apply to all stadiums that receive public funding. For example, if there is a large music concert or event at Windsor or Ravenhill and it is lucrative and profitable, surely the same clawback model should exist that is being proposed here for Casement Park. If it does not, it seems to be just an attempt to stick the boot into the GAA for the sake of it. The Member has been fairly consistent in that, which is his prerogative.

Neither Casement nor any other development of stadia should be about developer profits, gentrification or a low-wage neoliberal tourist economy. It is time to move on from the mega Casement and the failed economic model that drove it. It should be guided by the original ideals and values underpinning Cumann Lúthchleas Gael,

: a community project supporting amateur athletes and building grassroots GAA. I commend my amendment to the House.

Ms Reilly: I also make a declaration of interest as a proud member of the GAA.

Casement Park is an Executive flagship capital project, which has been mentioned. It stands alongside the other regional stadia that have already been delivered in Ravenhill and Windsor Park. That was, and is, a collective commitment by the Executive to invest in sport, infrastructure, communities and people right across our society. Reading the motion, I see no reference to those other stadia or to asking the Executive to claw back funds from the events that they have hosted, or could host, outside of the sport that they were built for.

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Ms Reilly: I will, yes.

Mr Gaston: Just for the Member's benefit, I am talking about future moneys. I have no problem in saying to the House that for any future investment that goes into Windsor or Ravenhill, once a line in the sand is drawn, clawback should be enacted.

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

Ms Reilly: Thank you. I will touch on that.

There is no mention of a clawback of funds on the events that they have hosted or could host outside the sport they were built for. Stadiums that were built for rugby or soccer have opened their gates to boxing events, concerts, corporate events, launches and other showcase commercial events, and why would they not? These are modern venues, designed to be utilised and meant to maximise opportunity, open their doors and invite people in to use them. There is no mention of a clawback, though, for those stadia in this motion. However, when it comes to Casement Park, the conversation suddenly shifts and there is an attempt to move the goalposts. It is OK for those other stadia venues to diversify and generate an income by hosting boxing and other events, but it is a problem when the same principle is applied to a GAA stadium. We can all read between the lines as to why that is.

The motion is not about financial prudence: it is pure double standards. It sends a clear message that it is OK for some, just not for the GAA. Let me be clear: Gaels across Belfast, Antrim and Ulster are entitled to have Casement Park redeveloped. The attempt to try to "other" Gaels through this motion should be called out for what it is: a blatant attack on the GAA. Members of the GAA, like others in the public, are taxpayers and ratepayers, and they contribute to society like everybody else.

The amendment, to be honest, is disappointing, because the Member for West Belfast knows and has seen at first hand the transformative power and the benefits of the GAA from club level up. We know the scale of grassroots investment that flows from development at the top. Any revenue generated through Casement, as with Windsor and Ravenhill, will be reinvested in the sport, the clubs, the facilities, youth development, coaching and community programmes.

It will be reinvested in the county structures and programmes, from juveniles right up to the men's and ladies' teams, allowing them the chance to develop and grow and to be the role models and the stars for the generation coming behind them.

Casement Park represents a significant opportunity for economic growth and regeneration and to create jobs, attract visitors and drive footfall into local businesses. When major games and events come to our city, whether sporting or cultural, they will fill hotel rooms. They support hospitality and place a positive spotlight on this place that we call home. Casement Park will be no different.

As someone who is a proud member of the GAA, as a coach and former player, I have seen and been part of the difference that it makes. The GAA is a community anchor. It promotes physical health; it strengthens mental resilience; it fosters leadership, discipline and teamwork. It binds communities together. On winter nights and summer evenings, our pitches are full of young people finding confidence in belonging, enjoying themselves and challenging themselves. That social value cannot be reduced to a narrow argument such as that in the motion.

Casement Park will be more than a stadium. It will be a catalyst for regeneration, a driver of opportunity and a symbol of equality in investment. Casement Park must be afforded the very same respect as other stadia. Equality means equality: nothing more, nothing less. We will not support the motion, nor will we support the amendment.

Mr Bradley: We support the motion and the amendment. However, I must make it clear: I support stadia and facility development that is necessary for any and all sports to grow.

In relation to Casement Park, it is important that any redevelopment is affordable, sustainable and capable of being operated responsibly over the long term, thereby ensuring financial viability and transparency, which is essential to maintaining public confidence in major capital projects. However, in the context of ongoing pressures on public finances, it is reasonable for the Assembly to consider how publicly funded venues are used and how wider public benefit is achieved. Where stadia that have received public investment are used for non-sporting events, it is appropriate to examine whether there should be a mechanism or some return to the public purse. It is acknowledged that concerts and other large-scale events can generate significant revenue and contribute positively to the local economy. At the same time, there is a broad public expectation that, where public funding has played a substantial role, a fair proportion of any commercial return should reflect that investment.

With regard to Casement Park, it is important that any redevelopment is affordable, sustainable and capable of operation over the long term, as I have said, therefore ensuring financial viability and value for money, which is essential to maintaining public confidence in major capital projects. The motion provides an opportunity to consider those issues in a balanced and pragmatic way. For that reason, I support it and the amendment.

Ms Mulholland: I will keep my remarks brief. Alliance supports the redevelopment of Casement Park and believes that it should be delivered as part of the original regional stadia commitment.

We will not support the motion. We believe that it singles out one sporting code in a way that risks deepening division and being perceived as a dog whistle. If Members believe that there should be clawback mechanisms attached to publicly funded stadia or, indeed, any publicly funded capital assets, we believe that that principle should be applied across the board to all arenas and all sports, not to one stadium alone.

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Ms Mulholland: I will not. I do not have much to get through.

For example, would it mean that proceeds from any non-sporting event held in any of the football grounds across the country that receive funding from the Department for Communities through the NI Football Fund (NIFF) should also be clawed back? Public finance rules must be fair, consistent and non-selective.

Mr Allen: At the outset, I say that there are a number of elements to the motion. Before I turn to the substance of the motion and the amendment, it is important to turn to the history of Casement Park itself.

The project did not reach its current cost estimate because of one decision or one party. There were planning challenges and court proceedings. The original planning was quashed. There were redesigns and safety issues that had to be addressed, and there was a period when the Assembly and the Executive were not functioning. Then, as we all know, the costs of construction and inflation rose sharply. Anyone involved in capital projects over the years knows how dramatically costs have increased. The most significant delays, however, stemmed from planning and safety considerations, and that is part of the factual record. It is too easy, and perhaps convenient, for some to reduce it to a simple political narrative or to level a charge of sectarianism.

The cost reality is more complex than that. The Executive have committed over £60 million, the UK Government £50 million, the Irish Government up to €50 million and the GAA £15 million. That is a commitment in the region of £170 million, which is more than the combined fund for the regional stadia programme. Acknowledging that fact, however, does not remove the issue that we face today. The projected cost has increased significantly from the original commitment and plan, and we are debating the matter at a time when capital budgets are under real pressure.

Every day, our constituents rightly highlight the length of housing waiting lists, school buildings that are no longer fit for purpose and roads that are in a shocking state, to mention but a few issues. Members across the House no doubt have similar examples that they will wish to highlight. Every time that we consider allocating further capital funding, we need to be honest about what that decision will mean for other priorities. Our position has been consistent throughout: the original commitment should be honoured — we are not arguing to tear it up — but we do not support the provision of additional public funds for Casement Park in the current fiscal climate, given the competing pressures that we face.

I will turn to the clawback element of the motion. When public funding is provided, the Minister and the Department must demonstrate that it meets the value-for-money test. That is not optional. Rather, it is a fundamental requirement when using public expenditure, and it applies to every project, not just Casement Park. If further money is provided, many will understandably question that decision, particularly those who are waiting on housing or for investment in essential infrastructure. That is the reality of the Budget context in which we are operating. On the principle of clawback, a requirement to recover a proportion of revenues that arise from non-GAA use is something worth considering. Where public money underwrites a venue that will host major commercial events, it is reasonable to examine whether a proportion of revenues should be returned to the public purse.

Mr Honeyford: I thank the Member for giving way. I just want to clarify something. Is he saying that if a venue makes money, it should be clawed back? Is the reverse therefore not also true? Ulster Rugby lost money last year, so should the state pay for its loss?

Mr Allen: The Member knows full well what I am referring to. He should not try to put words into my mouth.

We are also content, in principle, to support the Member for West Belfast's amendment, which broadens the scope, notwithstanding the concern that the proposer of the motion raised. Revenue-sharing mechanisms have been used elsewhere, as others have highlighted, although the details will need to be carefully considered, not least as they relate to the amendment.

There is a clear difference between hosting major concerts and routine room hire, and the practical implications of any mechanism must work in practice and not have any unintended consequences. I am therefore keen to hear more from the Minister about how clawback would work in practice, notwithstanding the unintended consequences for stadia and other projects that are already under construction. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on that.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Andy. I should have said that you had an extra minute, but you did not need it anyway.

Mr Durkan: I oppose the motion. We are speaking about the redevelopment of Casement Park, a long-promised, long-delayed project that represents far more than the construction of a stadium. It is about regeneration in west Belfast and parity of esteem in how we support our sporting infrastructure.

The Executive have previously backed strategic investment in major venues for soccer and rugby. The draft Budget seeks to provide more for those sporting codes. We also want to see the fair roll-out of the Northern Ireland Football Fund, because such investments are recognised as being of regional significance. They have not been subject to special clawback mechanisms that are tied to commercial activity. Rather, they were understood, correctly, to be infrastructure projects that deliver social, economic and sporting returns far beyond the turnstiles. Why, when it comes to Casement Park, are we suddenly being told that any commercial income must be siphoned back into the public purse? It is hard not to conclude that the motion is more about rabble-rousing than revenue raising and that it is another potshot taken by Mr Gaston at the big, bad boogeyman that is the GAA.

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Mr Durkan: Certainly.

Mr Gaston: Does the Member recognise that, throughout my contribution, I said, with regard to the money that was agreed in 2011, that a line should be drawn in the sand? There is a clear distinction between money that had been agreed — no clawback — and the future moneys that I am talking about. That would be for all sports, but the flagship project is for the GAA.

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

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for his intervention. I did not see any of that in the motion; it is the motion that we are debating. I acknowledge that the Member mentioned that in his remarks, but the motion does not say that. It singles out the GAA.

Let us be honest about what the stadium is for. Its primary purpose is to serve the GAA community — sorry, it was remiss of me not to declare my membership of the GAA — from the Antrim county teams to the thousands of young people who dream, and who will dream, of walking out on to that pitch. It is about providing safe, modern facilities for a sporting organisation that is woven into the fabric of our communities. I encourage Mr Gaston to give it a go: we all know how much he loves scoring points. [Laughter.]

We should recognise something else: the GAA is not a profit-distributing enterprise. It is a community-based, volunteer-led organisation that reinvests its revenues in grassroots sport. Every ticket sold, every event hosted and every sponsorship secured ultimately supports local clubs by funding coaching, youth development, facilities, inclusion programmes and community outreach. Across the North, GAA clubs are sustained by volunteers — parents, coaches, committee members — who give countless hours to help young people to keep active, healthy and engaged.

When the GAA generates income from larger events, that money does not lie in shareholders' pockets. It goes back into parishes, pitches, changing rooms and programmes that strengthen communities. Casement Park may host concerts or international fixtures — I look forward to the day that it does — but that is not something to fear. It is to be welcomed. Those events will bring visitors, jobs and spending into west Belfast and wider Belfast. Local cafes, shops, taxis and hotels will benefit: the wider economy will benefit. That is how public infrastructure works. We do not demand a clawback from private businesses that profit when roads are built, airports expanded or city centres regenerated. We recognise that public investment creates economic ecosystems. To impose a legally enforceable clawback mechanism uniquely on Casement Park would send the wrong message.

Ms K Armstrong: Will the Member give way?

Mr Durkan: Sorry, I will not have time, Kellie.

Mr Durkan: It would introduce financial uncertainty, could deter promoters and would risk further delaying a project that has already been subject to years of political obstruction and, yes, planning pitfalls. Above all, it would single out one sporting body — one community — for conditions that are not applied elsewhere.

Casement Park is about more than bricks and mortar. It is about fairness: delivering on commitments and ensuring that the GAA in Ulster and beyond has the same quality of facilities as those in other provinces and as there are for other sports here. For those reasons, I urge Members to reject the motion and allow this vital project to proceed not as a commercial venture to be penalised but as a community asset that will continue to reinvest in grassroots sport and in the future of society.

Ms Ennis: I suppose that I should declare an interest as a member of Saint Mary's GAC, Burren.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I tell you what: irony is well and truly dead. The motion comes from the TUV, which, by its own admission, could not care less if Casement was ever built, yet the Member comes to the Chamber demanding revenue from it. I had a whole speech written, but I thought, "You know what? To hell with that". Why would I stand here and waste my time trying to convince people — people who do not want to be convinced — of the value of the GAA?

I could stand here and try to educate Mr Gaston, political unionism and, by all accounts, People Before Profit on the immeasurable social, economic and sporting capital —

Mr Carroll: Will the Member give way?

Ms Ennis: I will not.

— that the GAA reinvests — [Interruption.]

Ms Ennis: You will have time when you are making a winding-up speech on your amendment.

— in communities, but that would be a waste of my time, because this is not a serious motion. It is yet another attempt by unionism to punish and debase the GAA and its members and to poke nationalism in the eye. Sinn Féin will not stand for that. This is not a serious debate, because we know that political unionism does not do the GAA. Political unionism does not do equality or fairness, because —

Mr Allen: Will the Member give way?

Ms Ennis: — there was no mention of clawback when it came to Windsor or Ravenhill. Political unionism does not do Irishness. Political unionism does not want any expression or promotion of Irish identity and culture, and that is what Casement would represent to them. However, the uncomfortable and inescapable truth for unionism is that the GAA has contributed more to the cultural, sporting, social and economic prosperity of this island and, indeed, the globe than its mean-spirited and insular world view ever could or will.

The motion and the amendment should be treated with the contempt that they deserve, and shame on anybody who gives either any credibility.

Mrs Cameron: I rise to support the motion and the amendment. This debate is about public money, accountability and fairness.

Mr Allen: I thank the Member for giving way. The previous contributor would not, although I know that the decision on whether to do so is the prerogative of each Member. For the benefit of the House, even though it has already been stated, will the Member remind us of the make-up of the Executive back in 2011 when the original commitment to regional stadia, including Casement, was made?

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

Mrs Cameron: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. I will leave others to answer the Member's query.

As I said, this debate is about public money, accountability and fairness. It is not about sport, culture or community identity; it is about whether taxpayers are entitled to see a return when public funds are used to underwrite major commercial activity. Casement Park is now a project with a total funding envelope of over £170 million. That includes £62·5 million from the Executive, £50 million from the UK Government, £43 million from the Irish Government and £15 million from the GAA. That is an unprecedented level of public investment in a single sporting venue. It is also clear that Casement Park will not be used solely for GAA matches. The stadium is intended to host large-scale commercial concerts and other major non-GAA events, which will generate significant private revenue. In that context, it is entirely reasonable to ask this simple question: where is the return for the public purse? The existing funding agreements for Casement Park, Windsor Park and Ravenhill contain conditions around income generation, market rates and community benefit. However, they do not provide a clear, legally enforceable clawback mechanism to recover a proportion of the profits from commercial events. That is a gap, and it is one that the Assembly should address.

We have heard arguments that Casement Park should be treated no differently from other stadia. I agree, and that is precisely why the amendment matters. This should not be about one project alone; the principle should apply to any publicly funded stadium now or in the future. If public money is used to build a venue that hosts concerts and other non-sporting events, a proportion of the net revenues from those events should flow back to the taxpayer. It is not punitive and does not threaten the viability of the project; it simply ensures value for money and protects public confidence.

The Minister has acknowledged that the situation has moved on considerably since earlier funding —

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Cameron: No, I will not at this point. Thank you.

— arrangements were put in place and that any new arrangement for Casement Park would require the funding agreement to be looked at again. That is an admission that the status quo is not sufficient. There is also the wider context that the Executive face intense pressure across Health, Education, Infrastructure and public services in general. Every pound matters. Public funding should not be open-ended, nor should it subsidise private commercial gain without conditions.

Let us also be clear that this is a GAA-led project, and it is therefore for the GAA to assess affordability, review its plans and determine what additional contribution it is prepared to make.

Public funding must be fair, proportionate and subject to clear safeguards. Supporting the motion and the amendment sends a clear message: if public money is to be used to support major commercial venues, the public interest comes first. The Assembly has a responsibility to set that standard. For those reasons, I support both the motion and the amendment.

Mrs Mason: Like others have done, I declare an interest as a proud member of St Colman's GAC in Drumaness.

Let us see the motion for what it really is: an anti-GAA motion from political unionism, which fears the benefits that the GAA brings. The motion is a clear attack on Gaels and an attempt to undermine and devalue the GAA as a whole. The motion is a farce; it is not a genuine attempt to look at putting greater accountability and transparency into public spending. It is about applying a separate set of standards to the GAA that has no basis and does not apply anywhere else.

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Mason: You had plenty of time.

I ask the simple question: why is there no mention of the clawback of public spend for all the other stadiums and those that benefited from the football fund?

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way so that I can give a simple answer?

Mrs Mason: I suspect —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order. Excuse me. Sit down, Cathy. Thank you. Timothy, you had 10 minutes to move the motion and will have 10 minutes to make your winding-up speech.

Mr Gaston: It was a simple question, and I will give a simple answer.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: No. You know that you should not engage in stuff from a sedentary position. Every Member is entitled to respect and to be heard. I ask you to adhere to that. Thank you.

Sorry, Cathy. Go ahead.

Mrs Mason: I suspect that we all know why that is. The chuntering further demonstrates that. It is because it is about the GAA.

A recent report on the social value of Gaelic games right across the island estimated that the GAA, the Ladies' Gaelic Football Association (LGFA) and Camogie Association were worth at least €2·87 billion to Irish society. That comes as no surprise to many of us who know and feel the value of their local GAA club. From Cork to Derry and Galway to County Down, the GAA is much more than a sporting organisation. It is the social fabric that holds communities together. It is not just about the games and the clubs but the people, pride and sense of belonging that stretches far beyond any pitch. The GAA provides a natural focal point for community life; a place where people come together, connect and take pride in something that is shared. When we invest in and enhance the spaces where communities gather, we are not just improving facilities but strengthening the very communities that rely on them.

That is why having modern, state-of-the-art facilities at Casement Park, where future generations can play, grow and thrive with pride and excitement, matters so deeply. The prospect of having a stadium of that magnitude in the heart of Belfast is an exciting one for our business community, hospitality, tourism and retail alike. Casement Park is not just about sport: it will be a major economic driver, boosting local business, bringing investment and jobs and ensuring that the benefits are felt directly by the surrounding communities as well as across the wider regional community. Casement Park gives young Gaels a stage to which they can aspire. It will act as a beacon for sporting excellence and opportunity.

In rural areas like my own constituency of South Down, the GAA club is often the first place where young people find their confidence, sense of belonging and voice. It is where neighbours become teammates and teammates become lifelong friends, keeping the spirit of community alive. The GAA provides something that is invaluable to all who participate. Whether you are playing, coaching, refereeing or simply cheering from the sideline, you are part of something bigger. When challenges come, whether it is a family in need or a community tragedy, or there is a moment of celebration, your local club is the first to rally and provide support and the last to leave your side. It is a reminder that rural Ireland is strong not because of its size but because of its solidarity. The GAA does not just build athletes; it builds community, resilience and a sense of belonging that lasts a lifetime.

The motion needs to be seen for what it actually is: an attempt to single out the GAA for treatment to which no other sport, stadium or governing body is subjected. We should call it out for what it is: discriminatory, unjustified and rooted in an outdated attitude that has absolutely no place in the modern, shared and economically ambitious North of Ireland.

Mr Brett: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate and introduce some facts that, unfortunately, have been missing from the very outset. There have been some predictable and some unpredictable remarks made. I will start with the unpredictable ones. Mr Gaston said that the motion is not about opposing Casement Park. That must be a change in policy on Casement Park from the TUV.

I will set out very clearly the Democratic Unionist Party's position: we signed up to a fair and equitable agreement for all sports across Northern Ireland in 2011, which gave sports equal funding to ensure that they were able to deliver the stadiums that they required. Some of those projects have been held up as a result of sectarian politics, but Casement Park is not one of them. The subregional stadia programme for football was held up by Sinn Féin Ministers because they did not want grassroots football in Northern Ireland to get the funding that it deserved.

Let us have the facts as to why Casement Park has not progressed. It was, frankly, laughable to listen to Mr Durkan as he tried with a straight face to lecture the House on why Casement Park has not been built. On many occasions, I have read this into the record, and I will do so again:

Who made that illegal and unlawful decision? It was none other than Mr Mark H Durkan, not the big, bad unionists whom some Members rant about when it comes to Casement Park.

Mr Durkan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brett: I will not give way, Mr Durkan.

Mr Durkan: Come on.

Mr Brett: You had the opportunity to apologise for breaking the law when you unlawfully approved Casement Park, but you have not done so to date.

Now that we are on the subject of the SDLP and Casement Park, let me read into the record some other remarks from members of that party. Mr Attwood, former SDLP MLA for West Belfast, said:

to oppose moving those plans forward. Were those remarks about opposing those plans made by a unionist? They were not. They were remarks from the SDLP, which happily opposed Casement Park for political expediency, hoping that Mr Attwood would hold onto his seat against Sinn Féin, but, in the end, he lost his seat and any credibility on Casement Park.

We then listened to the uninformed rant from Comrade Carroll about the reason for Casement Park not being built. He said that it was as a result of unionist Ministers, but he did not give one example of an action by a unionist Minister that contributed to why it has not been built. Again, let me read into the record comments by Mr Carroll on Casement Park:

Those were the remarks of Mr Carroll, who stood on the picket line to oppose the development of Casement Park. He then comes to the House and throws out nonsense about the DUP and other unionist Ministers opposing the building of Casement Park. There is no branch of the Democratic Unionist Party on the Andersonstown Road in west Belfast, although I wish that there were. It was Mr Carroll and his comrades who stopped the building of Casement Park.

Mr Carroll: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brett: I will not give way. Unfortunately, we had to listen to your 10-minute rant at the start, and we will have to listen to another five minutes of your nonsense.

I turn to the issue of safety concerns at the stadium. It is a matter of fact that, in a tribunal case, Sport NI was forced to pay a settlement to Mr Paul Scott because he raised issues about safety concerns at Casement Park. None of the people involved was a DUP Minister or a DUP politician.

We then heard a rant from the Chief Whip of Sinn Féin, who said that she had not written a speech but then managed to read out every single word of one that she had written before coming to the Chamber. In her anti-unionist rant, she said that we did not care about Irishness and that we hate Irish people. You do not get to tell me what my identity is.

I am very proud to say that I am British, I am Irish and I am proudly Northern Irish. You do not get to tell me.

The facts speak for themselves. Sinn Féin and other nationalists have failed to deliver Casement Park.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Mr Brett: It is your fault.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Mr Brett: You are to blame.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up. I call Colm Gildernew.

Mr Brett: Not the big, bad unionists.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sit down.

Mr Gildernew: It should come as no surprise to Members that I oppose the motion. The proposer of the motion claims that it is about protecting the public purse, but it is obvious to me and to anyone watching that it is nothing of the sort. The motivation for the motion is to attack the GAA and anything to do with Irish culture. We know that because the motion singles out Casement Park as the only stadium that will be subject to the clawback provision. No other stadia are included in the call for clawback.

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gildernew: No. You will have 10 minutes to try to explain why Casement Park is the only stadium that is mentioned. I am not sure whether that will be enough for you, to be honest, but you will have those 10 minutes.

Sinn Féin does not see this as a serious motion; rather, it is another attempt by the TUV to engage in a culture war, which, sadly, seems to be all that political unionism has to offer these days. I welcome the progress being made on Casement Park. The sight of machinery on the ground, as initial groundwork recently got under way, has been cause for optimism in west Belfast and the wider Ulster GAA family.

The GAA is the biggest and most successful sporting organisation in the North, despite decades of discrimination and underinvestment. It is rooted in communities across the country and is thriving in Irish emigrant communities across the world from Britain to Boston to Beijing. It is only right and fair that the GAA's landmark stadium in the North is redeveloped, in addition to the redevelopment of Windsor Park and Ravenhill, as was agreed almost two decades ago.

We must also remember the huge community and health benefits that stand to be gained from the project. A report commissioned by the GAA in 2024 estimated that, across the island — we have already heard it, but it bears repeating — the GAA generates £2·87 billion in economic and social value, which is manifested in a host of areas, including health and well-being, social capital and volunteering.

Mr Butler: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gildernew: I will not.

Delivering Casement Park will add to those benefits for west Belfast and beyond. Despite the bluster from Members opposite, we on this side of the House will stand firm in our commitment to see the project delivered and ensure that the GAA is supported to continue making a vital contribution to our communities in the North and, indeed, all across Ireland.

Mr McNulty: I rise to speak about the powerful and positive impact that the redevelopment of the home of Antrim GAA — Casement Park — will have on the island as a symbol of hope and ambition, a beacon for sporting dreams and endeavour and a gateway point to Ireland's second-largest city. The benefits arising from a newly built world-class stadium at Casement Park in the heart of west Belfast will be immense. From a health and sporting perspective, thousands upon thousands of players will have a new stadium in which challenge themselves physically and mentally on the field of play. Players immersed in the grind, the commitment and the teamwork will build lifelong friendships while playing games of huge sporting and cultural significance on this island. From a social, community and economic standpoint, the completion of a 34,000-capacity stadium will stimulate significant positive economic multiplier effects, creating construction jobs, generating seat revenue, potentially providing a huge local economic uplift and attracting sports fans and tourists to the North.

Casement Park is more than just a stadium; it has the potential to become a hotbed for Gaelic games in the heart of west Belfast. It can become the beating heart of the GAA in Ulster. For too long, Casement Park has remained dormant and abandoned, causing the North to miss out on hosting major global sporting events and leading to an entire generation of hurlers, footballers, camogie players and ladies' Gaelic footballers missing out on the opportunity to play on Casement's hallowed turf. Delays to Casement are dreams denied. Ladies' Gaelic footballers dream of playing against Dublin; ladies' camogie players dream of playing against Cork; Antrim footballers dream of taking on Armagh; and hurlers dream of taking on Limerick on Casement's turf. That would be very special. So many young people dream of that possibility, but it is being denied because of delays.

Casement Park has the potential to be a huge source of community and social cohesion and pride. However, rather than honour that potential, the motion attempts to attack Casement Park before it is even built. The GAA has demonstrated demand for a 34,000-capacity stadium at Casement Park. I wonder whether Mr Gaston has consulted the chief executive of the Irish Football Association (IFA) and the chief executive of Ulster Rugby about his proposal. Are they on board with the proposal as it relates to Clearer Twist National Stadium at Windsor Park and the Kingspan Stadium at Ravenhill?

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Mr McNulty: I will not give way to Timmy, because he has made his anti-GAA diatribe enough.

The motion is anti-GAA, but, more fundamentally, it is a distraction from the real crux of the matter: when will Casement Park be built? On 2 July 2025, I asked the First Minister and the deputy First Minister to detail any communications relating to Casement Park. That question from seven months ago was answered only this morning. A coincidence? I wonder. On 21 January, I asked the First Ministers a question for written answer about when construction was due to be completed, given the commencement of enabling works. That question was due to be answered on 26 January. Will it be answered six months later, possibly in July, as was the case with the previous question? When will Casement Park be built?

I say to the Executive that it is time to see cranes over Casement, not mere enabling works. The focus of the Assembly must be to hold the Executive to account on their flagship projects and on completing Casement Park. Building the stadium will bring joy to sports fans, as well as economic, health, community and social benefits to the North, and will generate massive sporting and national pride on the island. Let us get Casement Park built.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Next is the Minister for Communities, who will respond to the debate.

Minister, you have up to 15 minutes.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank all Members for their contributions, and I welcome the opportunity to respond to the debate and the amendment. As the Minister with responsibility for the long-established regional stadia programme, I recognise the issues that Members have raised about the future use of the Casement Park stadium, in particular the question of whether a mechanism should be put in place to secure a clawback of public funds from non-GAA events held at Casement Park for the public purse. Let me provide clarity to the House: that is something that I support. However, let me first set out a little of the history behind the Casement Park project, as some in the Chamber seem to have forgotten that history or seem determined to rewrite it.

In 2011, there was a funding agreement for football, rugby and the GAA. I stand by that agreement, which would have allowed all projects to progress. The work at Windsor Park progressed. The work at Ravenhill progressed. The work at Casement Park did not.

Mr Allen: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Lyons: I will give way.

Mr Allen: Will the Minister enlighten the House as to whether those from political unionism were involved in that funding agreement, because some with a short memory have tried to make out that they were not?

Mr Lyons: We were involved in that. We agreed to it, and we stand by that. I know that that does not suit the agenda of some and the message that they are trying to push. I will come to that further in my remarks.

The question that I ask is this: why has the project not progressed? The answer is simple: it is because of the actions of Sinn Féin and SDLP Ministers.

Unlawful decisions, community objections and safety certificate scandals all led to significant planning delays. As a result of those delays, costs have spiralled.

The project has not been without controversy, and there continues to be controversy; in fact, even over the past couple of months, senior figures in Monaghan and Tyrone GAA have expressed their opposition to the current plans. Let us not pretend that everybody is in agreement or that there is a simple and straightforward path for everybody to go down. Mr McNulty and others say, "Let's just get on with it and get the stadium built", but we know that there are significant barriers in the way.

We are also aware that additional capital allocations are currently unaffordable in the context of squeezed capital budgets for public services. That is why I, along with other Ministers, need to make sure that we spend the available money wisely. The immediate challenge is to live within the existing budget envelope. The challenge of more for less is here to stay. We therefore need to be open to all options. We all want value for money and for stadiums and other assets to be sustainable. We all want to assist and support partners to develop and grow.

Members will be aware that Casement Park is the third and final project in the regional stadia programme. The other two major projects — Ravenhill and Windsor Park — were completed and became operational in 2014 and 2016 respectively. The then Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure had funding arrangements in place with the IFA and Ulster Rugby, but, now that there are additional funding streams coming from other sources, we will have to look again at all options for future funding agreements.

My officials are currently considering an amended funding model to accommodate the new funding streams available to the Casement Park stadium, including the specific requirements of the UK Government's equity financial transactions capital element. I await advice on how new funding streams will be handled. That will, however, allow us to look at various funding models, which can include those that minimise the impact on the public purse. It is important to note that that work has not concluded and that any proposals will have to be agreed with all stakeholders and parties to the funding agreements. It is something that we should all be open to, however.

At this stage, I will sound a note of caution about Casement Park and all other capital projects. Funding for them all will be subject to a business case. A project's viability will be rigorously tested through the business case process, in which it must demonstrate value for money and sustainability. As part of the process, value for money is embedded across all aspects, including, where appropriate, any scope to return profits from non-sporting events to the public purse. There are no special cases or exemptions from the process.

It is also important that we have consistency on the proportion of funding already allocated to the programme. An important aim of the programme of capital investment in regional stadia is to reduce the three main sports' future reliance on ongoing revenue support from government. The principle that has been applied in the regional stadia programme is that capital investment supports each sport's ability to develop long-term financial sustainability. Of course, commercial activities form part of that sustainability, as they allow the governing bodies to operate and maintain their facilities without additional, ongoing public revenue support. The commercial management and operation of Casement Park, once completed, will therefore lie with the Ulster Council of the GAA, in accordance with the conditions of the existing funding agreement and any new funding model pertaining to the additional funding streams.

The amendment raises an important issue about the future management of public funding for stadia in general. It proposes that public investment in any stadia currently under construction and in future projects be contingent on a legally enforceable clawback mechanism:

It is entirely appropriate that Members should have the ability to consider how best to safeguard public investment and the forms of return that may be justified. There are legitimate matters for scrutiny here, particularly where publicly funded facilities may also operate as commercial venues for events beyond their primary sporting purpose. It will also be necessary to assess the amendment within the broader policy framework that has guided the regional stadia programme since its inception.

The programme has consistently operated on the principle that capital investment should strengthen each sporting code's long-term financial sustainability and reduce future reliance on government revenue support. Central to that approach has been enabling venues to diversify income through a range of commercial and non-sporting activities. Public money is given because there is an expectation that market failure has taken place and there is no other option open to venues to get them where to need to be. However, if an organisation is particularly commercially successful in making significant sums from commercial venues, most people will see that it is only right that such a return should be made to the public purse. For those reasons, I believe that the motion and the amendment are entirely reasonable.

I have to say that I am surprised by the response of some in the House today. We have frequently heard from the parties opposite the refrain that this explicitly targets the GAA. Some may be supportive — [Interruption.]

Mr Lyons: Mr Durkan, let me finish my sentence. Perhaps it will all become clear to him.

If that is Members' concern, the amendment helpfully tabled by Mr Carroll provides a way for everybody to be treated equally. We have heard the word "equality" time and again. The amendment means that, from this point, people will be treated equitably. It opens the door to allowing a clawback that, by the way, is nothing new. As Mr Gaston pointed out, it exists in other parts of the United Kingdom, and it has existed in Northern Ireland. I think in particular of the opportunity that urban development grants gave to different areas. The success of that allowed a clawback. If your concern is that this is only about the GAA, vote for the amendment and make sure that, from here on, everybody is treated equally and that, if there are significant commercial returns for one organisation or all the organisations involved, there could be some return for the public purse. We invest public money on the basis that it is required because there is no other option for organisations to develop, but, if they subsequently become successful, is it not right — is there not benefit in this? — to make sure that that comes our way?

Ms Ennis: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Lyons: Yes, I am happy to give way to the Member, who, I think, wants to use this as an opportunity to have a go at unionism. She did not address the motion earlier.

Ms Ennis: Thank you. I hear what the Minister says, but does he not accept that that was not a condition when Casement was announced along with the other two stadia? To impose it retrospectively is not equality; it is not fair.

Mr Lyons: Funding agreements were in place with Windsor Park and with Ravenhill, and a default on those funding agreements would have necessitated a clawback and allowed it to happen. A funding agreement for Casement Park has not been put in place. One of the reasons why a new funding agreement is needed is that there is additional FTC. It is up to the Executive to decide how the equity share works out. With most FTC, there is a requirement for some return on the loan that is given.

The motion does not say that all commercial profit needs to come back; it says that "an agreed proportion" should come back. It asks whether, if something is commercially successful and there is a large return from such events, it is only fair that the public purse should get a little back. I say that we should treat everybody the same: if additional funding is required for the other stadia, treat them the same. There is an opportunity for us today to agree, on the basis of equality, that everybody should be treated equally. The motion does not determine exactly how much or what percentage; it opens the door to successful commercial ventures to give a return.

I was disappointed with some of the responses, and I count the Alliance Party in that. In Ms Mulholland's short contribution, she said that she did not want to deepen division and felt that there was an issue of equality, because it was a case of one being picked out over others. However, the amendment gives her an opportunity to show that everybody can be treated equally and to demonstrate financial prudence and responsibility. I urge the Alliance Party, as I urge everybody in the Chamber, to reconsider. It is an option that may make us more sustainable and give us a return so that we can invest more in the future.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for giving way. Does the Minister envisage that the clawback could be applied only to regional stadia, or would recipients of the Northern Ireland Football Fund, for example, be expected to cough up too?

Mr Lyons: I envisage it being used primarily for the regional stadia. We are talking about a portion of significant commercial income. I am not sure that smaller clubs that have been impacted by that fund would get that commercial return, so that is still fair. That is a reasonable point. I am not even saying that it will generate a lot of income, but I am asking this: why would we not allow that option to be there and consider it?

The way that this appears to be going is disappointing. Much of the debate has been about one organisation being singled out over others. The amendment gives us a way to consider the issue and ensure that everybody is treated fairly. I encourage —

Mr McCrossan: I thank the Minister: he is kind in giving way. Minister, it will be no shock that the SDLP will not support the motion or the amendment. However, seeing that you are a Minister who is worried about pounds and pennies, the SDLP will happily sponsor your first tickets to Casement Park.

Mr Lyons: That is kind of the Member, but I urge him, even at this last minute, to reconsider. If we are serious about spending money wisely and want to ensure equality and equal treatment, it would be wise for him to get on board.

Mr McNulty: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Lyons: I am reluctant to give way to the Member, because I thought that his was a lazy speech. His speech did not address the motion. This was not a proper debate about the rights and wrongs of a clawback; it was people repeating their old tired —

Mr McNulty: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Lyons: No, I am not giving way.

— their old tired ideas about Casement Park, rather than looking at the motion. If we read — [Interruption.]

I am not giving way, Mr McNulty. If we read the motion and the amendment, everybody should be willing to accept them, but, unfortunately, some Members are so blinded that they are not prepared to accept reasonable proposals.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I remind the Member that you are not supposed to shout at anyone from a sedentary position.

Mr McNulty: Apologies, apologies.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Justin. Much appreciated.

Gerry Carroll, you have five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech on your amendment.

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. I will not be able to respond to everything, but I will do my best to respond to some points.

My colleague from West Belfast, the junior Minister, spoke about the wide-ranging benefits of a Casement Park development, and I hope that that is the case if a proper, manageable and safe Casement Park is allowed to go ahead. We need to be cognisant that, in a general sense, the financial impacts of developments are often exaggerated. The economic impact of the Olympics, the World Cup and the Euros beyond just the stadiums is often over-egged. Dave Zirin, a well-known sports journalist, when talking about the Olympics, said something that is relevant to Casement Park:

You could replace "the Olympics" with "any stadium across the North". That point needs to be emphasised. Looking closer to home, I remember, before I was elected to anywhere, the hoo-ha around the Titanic development and the economic impact that would come from that. I think that that was then the largest public spend on a tourist attraction in Europe, and people would laugh at you if you talked about the economic and job impacts of that. Grand Central station, whilst important for transport —

Mr McNulty: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: I will give way, sure.

Mr McNulty: Does the Member agree that it is about much more than the economic impact? Can you imagine the feeling of young people coming out of the tunnel in Casement Park with the roar of the crowd, the raw nervousness, the excitement and the anticipation of the battle? You cannot buy that with money, Gerry.

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

Mr Carroll: Thank you.

I agree with the Member. I had the, I suppose, unfortunate reality of going as a kid to watch Antrim get hammered by Derry most championship years. The Member for Foyle is probably laughing at that. I agree with the Member; I just criticise the point that was made not just by the Member for West Belfast but by others about the economic impact. I am not saying that it does not exist, but it is generally —

Ms Reilly: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: Sure.

Ms Reilly: Does the Member not agree that there will be an economic benefit and impact, particularly for the businesses around West Belfast, from the footfall? We should be ambitious as elected representatives for West Belfast. We want to see the most investment possible going into our small part of the world.

Mr Carroll: I agree with the Member on that. The point that I am making is about the types of jobs: will they be in the service industry and hospitality, where people are usually underpaid and often in non-unionised positions? That point stands, although the Member made valid points.

The Member for South Down Sinéad Ennis talked about the TUV poking people in the eye: I do not disagree with that. She went on to criticise unionism: I agree with some of those criticisms, but I remind her that her party is in government with the biggest unionist party in this place. As another Member mentioned, Ms Ennis said that she had a speech that she would not use but went on to use it anyway. That is her prerogative. Some would say that that was performative, and some would say other things about it. She tried to lecture me and my party on the GAA. When Members do that, it means that they have nothing else to criticise the amendment for.

Ms Ennis: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: You did not give way to me, so no, thanks. Manners cost nothing and all that. I am used to Sinn Féin misrepresenting my and my party's views on the issue. That is by the by.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: I will make some progress.

I am used to that, but they also misrepresent the concerns of people who live in the vicinity of Casement Park, in places such as Stockmans, Mooreland, Owenvarragh and elsewhere. At a deeper level, Sinn Féin knows that it botched this stage of the Casement Park development, and it is frustrated and angry about that. If I were a Sinn Féin Member, I would be as well.

The Member for North Belfast, who is no longer in the Chamber, was robust as usual but reluctant to give way. Comrade Carroll says to him — big, bad Brett

— that he needs to listen to the truth. I was proud to stand with the residents of Andietown. That was not a picket line; a picket line involves striking workers. I may educate the Member about that on another day. I stand with them in their protest to say that they are for the development of the stadium in principle and in practice but criticise the particular development that was proposed. It is possible to do both, and that is not rocket science. People grasp that, even when Members misrepresent it.

Some Members mentioned their concern about singling out the GAA. I made that point directly to Timothy Gaston yesterday and made it in my speech today. Strangely, on the amendment, I find myself agreeing with the Communities Minister, maybe for the first time ever. The amendment covers other stadiums as well; it explicitly does not single out the GAA. Members should genuinely read the amendment; I am not being facetious.

Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Member for giving way, even though he is winding on his amendment. The amendment refers to:

That causes me a lot of concern for organisations that have borrowed money. What does that say to the banks? It says that the funding will be changed when they have already started.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Gerry, your time is running out.

Mr Carroll: I cannot address that in 10 seconds. I know that the Member tried to intervene earlier. The point stands.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Mr Carroll: OK.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The next Member to speak will be Timothy Gaston to wind on the motion.

Timothy, you have 10 minutes.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Principal Deputy Speaker. Due to the lack of Members willing to give way, I hope to take every second, if required.

From the get-go, I assure the House that, yes, I am still opposed to Casement and am unashamedly opposed to the GAA, for the grounds that it has named after terrorists, for the atrocities that have been carried out and for the trophies that have been named after them. Those are linked to the GAA to this day.

I challenge the GAA to sort out its own backyard and the image that it portrays to unionism.

The debate has been a first for me. Principal Deputy Speaker, you made a point of order to Mr Carroll. I have not been a Member for that long, but nowhere in Standing Orders does it say that a Speaker, when presiding over a debate, can raise a point of order with a Member. You can absolutely challenge a Member, but raising a point of order with a Member does not reflect proper debate in the Chamber.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order. Take your seat, Timothy. Maybe I should have said "Order", rather than "On a point of order". It is important that, when Members speak in the Chamber, despite there being political back and forth, they do so with accuracy; otherwise, they would deliberately be denigrating someone. Continue.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Principal Deputy —.

Mr Carroll: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: Yes, I am happy to give way.

Mr Carroll: Although I would never challenge a ruling of the Speaker — I take the Principal Deputy Speaker's point that it was an order that was made when I spoke — does the Member share my concern that the same was not applied to Mr Brett from North Belfast?

Mr Gaston: I will leave that between the Principal Deputy Speaker and —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order. Timothy, take your seat again, if you do not mind.

Gerry, you are challenging the Speaker. I allow a lot of back and forward. The difference is that what Phillip Brett was doing was political, while what you were doing was downright lies. If you are not happy — I suspect that you are not — I ask that the Hansard report be reflected on, and that it be sent to you. If "Order" were called every time that somebody offended somebody else, we would be out in the hall with our fingers on our lips. That is not going to happen, but it is important that we do not tell lies.

Sorry for the interruptions, Timothy. Please continue.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Principal Deputy Speaker. To start off —.

Mr Carroll: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: I will, reluctantly.

Mr Carroll: Is the Member concerned about a Member of the House being accused of lying by the person currently occupying the Speaker's Chair?

Mr Gaston: I encourage the Member to refer that to the Speaker.

As I was saying, Principal Deputy Speaker, to start my summing up —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Timothy, would you mind taking your seat again?

This is bordering on the ridiculous now. It is beginning to sound, for want of a better term, like "Nyah-nyah, nyah-nyah nyah" from grown adults. I am going to refer this to the Speaker. No one was accused of telling lies. I said that it is important that people do not tell lies, OK? That applies to inaccuracies as well.

Timothy, for the fourth time: continue.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Principal Deputy Speaker.

To start off my summing up proper, I put on record my thanks to the Research and Information Service (RaISe) for the paper that it produced. It did the homework of Members. It is clear that nationalist Members did not bother reading my motion or the RaISe paper. The paper demonstrates quite well that there is a precedent in the UK. Indeed, it refers to the Scottish model and the Olympic stadium. That shows that Members do not like the messenger, did not read the motion and did not bother reading the information that was provided by RaISe. The paper is an excellent read, and I encourage everybody to take the time to read it.

On that basis, I will move forward. There is a stark reality in the House when it comes to debating Casement or any GAA matters. Time after time, nearly every nationalist MLA who gets up to speak in such a debate has to declare an interest as being affiliated with or a member of a local GAA organisation. It is no surprise, then, that they say that they want the GAA to be treated differently from any other organisation. My motion is very clear; it draws a line in the sand to say that money that has been offered out to date has gone. I was not here at that time. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I am talking about new money, going forward.

I agree with the vast majority of Mr Carroll's amendment. The bit that I have trouble with is the reference to "stadia currently in construction". We need to draw a line in the sand and set an example, so that, going forward, any public money given out by the Executive will be introduced to the clawback for those who generate revenue.

Mr Lyons: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: I am happy to give way to Mr Lyons.

Mr Lyons: I reassure the Member that we do not have any stadiums currently under construction. No funding agreements are in place, either. On that basis, perhaps the Member will reconsider his position.

Mr Gaston: I thank the Minister for that clarity. My concern is about the Northern Ireland Football League funding for stadia and the clubs the length and breadth of Northern Ireland, such as Ballymena United, who have participated in all good faith. I do not want a rerun of the renewable heat incentive, where an agreement was put in place, but the Executive rowed back on commitments already made. That is where my problem is with the amendment. I support it in broad terms, absolutely. I have no problem if any money given out to any of the major stadiums from here on in undergoes a clawback mechanism if revenue is generated from them.

I will go through a number of the points that have been made. Mr Carroll put both feet into Sinn Féin in some of his remarks, and I enjoyed that, to be honest with you. He outlined how the project has been beset with problems from the get-go.

In no particular order, I come to Cathy Mason, who talked about a farce. She asked a simple question. I wanted to give her a simple answer, but she did not want to know. She would not accept an intervention. That was a case of me coming out and publicly saying, in this place, in my motion, that I have no problem, whether it is with football, rugby or GAA: from this point forward, they should face the clawback mechanism. The problem was that the Member did not want me to intervene. It was quite clear. She had a script in front of her, and she would have to throw out the entire script. Time after time, Sinn Féin Members just wanted to line up and attack me for what I think about the GAA. However, this is not about the GAA per se: it is about public money, fairness and the prudent use of public money.

I will highlight Andy Allen's contribution. I thought that it was excellent. He talked about the planning challenges that have afflicted the project right from the get-go and about the court decisions. He talked about construction inflation and pointed out that the GAA has committed only £15 million to the project to date, at a time when — we talked about potholes yesterday — there is not the money to put into potholes, and our schools are crumbling and we cannot build new ones. I think of Causeway Academy. We had a meeting yesterday morning, and that school has not even made the list of new schools. Yet the GAA has given a measly commitment of £15 million.

Aisling Reilly, I want to come back to you because you talked about double standards. You did not listen to my intervention at all, because you still went on with your pre-scripted nonsense that this was all just about me against the GAA, which could not be further from the truth. This is about public prudence and public money. It is quite clear from your contribution that Casement is the cash cow that will bankroll the future of the GAA. That is not the case for rugby or football. That shows how you believe that the GAA should be treated differently, and, time after time, Member after Member who stood up on the nationalist side showed that the GAA should be treated differently.

Mark Durkan talked about regenerating west Belfast. There is no doubt about that: parity of esteem. You went on to talk about scoring points. One thing that I would say to you, Mark, is that when I hit, I put the ball in the net. The GAA likes to put it over the bar and miss the target, whereas every time that I take a shot, I hit my target. [Laughter.]

Sinéad Ennis talked about wasted time, so I will skip on over her remarks because I do not want to waste my time responding to her.

Pam Cameron brought us back to what the motion is really about: the public finances. She asked a simple question: where is the funding to the public purse? When we are putting in substantial amounts of money, there has to be a return for it.

To pick up on Mr Brett's remarks, I can just reassure him — I am sure that he is watching from upstairs — that TUV policy has not changed. We are opposed to Casement Park. However, I am in this House and I know the hand that I have been dealt. I recognise that Mr Brett and others signed up to Casement a long time ago, and I have to work with the hand that I have been dealt.

Mr Colm Gildernew talked about a culture war. It is frustrating how nationalism has not listened. Nationalists have not read the motion or listened to anything that has been said, but he did say something that was quite interesting. He talked about a £2·8 billion generation figure and about the social and economic benefits that flow from it. If those are the benefits that come, where is the GAA's fair and equitable proportion to give into it? If it means so much to the GAA — I go on to Mr McNulty talking about "a symbol of hope" and "the beating heart of the GAA" — why not stick your hand in your pocket, get the wallet out and pay your fair share for Casement Park?

Time after time, you want the priority to be all things GAA. You want it to be treated differently, and that is something that I do not want. I want all sports to be treated the same. That is why it is fair that I said to draw a line in the sand, and any public money that is awarded from here for any sport in the future should be subject to the clawback mechanism.

Do I get an extra minute, since I was interrupted four times? [Interruption.]

No.

On that basis, I happily move my motion and commend it to the House.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Timothy, I deliberately let you go over because of all the interruptions, two of which —.

Mr Gaston: It was four seconds.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I know, but, sometimes, four seconds is not a lot, and, other times, it is too much, but we will say nothing.

I want to clarify something for Mr Carroll. I will look at Hansard. If I called you "a liar", I will apologise. However, there were differences in the two approaches: one is accusing someone of detrimentally and deliberately interfering with safety, and another one was completely political. You can see that the nuances are slightly different. If I called you "a liar", I apologise, but I will look at Hansard, because, the last thing that I want to do —. To be frank, I want to be fair to everybody, so that is basically it.

Unless I am on another planet, it is clear to me that there will be a Division. [Interruption.]

I will not ask. I will just accept that there is. The Business Committee will meet at 1.00 pm. After Question Time, we will take the vote on the amendment and then on the motion. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. Thank you.

Mr Speaker: Question 6 has been withdrawn.

Mr Lyons: The Your School Your Club programme is delivered on behalf of my Department by Sport NI. Its chief executive officer has advised me that a two-stage application process was used to identify and select projects. Stage-1 applicants were required to provide evidence of four mandatory criteria: managing authority support, board of governors support, security of tenure and, if required, planning approval.

Schools that met all stage-1 requirements progressed to stage 2, at which they were asked to submit additional information. That was assessed against a scoring matrix that was developed by Sport NI, which included value-for-money weighting. The required information included a description of the project; current users and additional users; current hours and additional hours; details of programmes and activities; a weekly timetable of estimated use; finance for the project, including project costs and partnership funding; two years of accounts; and the Northern Ireland multiple deprivation score.

Ms Sheerin: Minister, we all remember the Lisneal College debacle last year, when money was allocated to that school without there being any evidence of clear objective need. Can you clarify whether evidence of clear objective need was factored into the latest round of funding via the programme?

Mr Lyons: I advise the Member not to come to the Chamber with any insinuation or unfounded allegation. I have just set out the process by which money was allocated, including the use of the Northern Ireland multiple deprivation score. The allocations have been made fairly and transparently. Sport NI was asked to make them on the Department's behalf, and I am confident that they have been made in the right way.

Ms Brownlee: The Your School Your Club programme has been a game changer, for not only East Antrim but right across Northern Ireland. Does the Minister agree that the programme should continue to be funded? Can he commit to further funding for it next year?

Mr Lyons: Absolutely. I am a strong supporter of the programme because I have seen the change that it can make, not just in schools but in the communities that they serve. That is why I increased its budget from £500,000 to £3 million this year, which is why so many projects have gone ahead.

The programme is also a good example of two Departments working together to deliver real outcomes for people across Northern Ireland. We should all want to see more people get active. To do so, they need the facilities. As well as all the obvious sporting benefits, we are benefiting health outcomes, social inclusion and community cohesion. I will therefore continue to allocate additional levels of funding to the programme, as will my colleague Paul Givan, in order to ensure that we deliver vital sporting resources to our communities right across Northern Ireland.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Minister, for the update on the programme. As you will be aware, Ulster Hockey presented to the Communities Committee last week. It spoke to its report on the state of pitches right across Northern Ireland. Will you provide the House with an update on any plans for additional hockey pitches in Northern Ireland?

Mr Lyons: In the past couple of weeks, I also had a very good meeting with Ulster Hockey, at which some of the concerns that the Member raised in her question were expressed. I am committed to developing sporting facilities in Northern Ireland, and that is why I established the Olympic legacy fund, which allows organisations to apply for match funding through Crowdfunder. I am sure that the Member will be aware of many organisations in her own constituency that are doing just that.

I always want to see more money for sport. We are operating in a constrained budgetary environment, and that is why the Olympic legacy fund is such a good programme, because it combines government support and money raised. I hope that that fund can continue, but I will do everything that I can to make sure there is provision available, especially for hockey, which has seen such growth in recent years.

Mr McNulty: Minister, does your Department hold any data on the downstream benefits of sporting participation, especially of embedding a culture of inclusive participation from early years, through school and beyond?

Mr Lyons: Many surveys and pieces of research have been done over the years, but none of us needs those to understand and recognise that, without question, such participation is beneficial. It gets more people more active more often and improves wider health and societal outcomes. That is why I am so keen to make sure that we continue to invest in and have facilities that can be used by people across Northern Ireland.

The Your School Your Club programme is so important because so much of our sporting estate is within the school estate. I want that to be open all hours, as far as possible, so that the school and then the wider community can benefit. That has not been done on such a scale before. I am committed to continuing to find innovative ways of ensuring that we get all the facilities that we need and deserve.

Mr Lyons: All Departments are currently engaged in the development of the Ulster-Scots language, heritage and culture strategy and the Irish language strategy through the work programme of the cross-departmental working group. The group's work builds on the work of each strategy's expert advisory panel and co-design group to ensure that each strategy is coherent, costed and accompanied by a series of achievable actions within departmental remits.

The detailed timing for that work is, to a large degree, outside the control of my Department. There is a wide range of material to consider, and the working group members need to take into account their existing departmental priorities and budgets and the practicalities involved in delivering on the vision. Once the group has completed its work programme, and upon receipt of relevant departmental approvals, officials will bring forward both draft strategies for my consideration. I will then bring them to the Executive.

Mr Kearney: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht an fhreagra sin.

Your Ministry has increasingly become defined as one with a reputation for being hostile to the Irish language, hostile to equality and hostile to the Irish language community and to meetings with it. That is the opposite of what should be expected from your office. Therefore, Minister, will you outline what steps you will take in the remainder of the mandate to rebuild relationships, trust and confidence with the Irish language community in the North?

Mr Lyons: No, it has not become that. That is what the Member and his party have tried to portray. I have treated everybody equitably. I have met individuals and organisations; I have attended events; and I will continue to engage with people across the breadth of my portfolio. I know that it is in his political interests to say otherwise, and he and his party have tried that in relation to the strategy: even when the issue has been outside my control, he has tried to portray that as hostility to the language.

It is his party that, through the moves that it has made, has done more to harm the development of the Irish language in our society. Take, for example, the 15% threshold for street signage in Belfast. Even when things go against the wants and desires of the vast majority of people, his party is willing to put in place a policy that is not conducive to good relations. The Member should take a look in the mirror if he is concerned about the development of the Irish language. I will continue to work for everybody in Northern Ireland and find a way forward that has consensus and is affordable and effective.

Mr Mathison: Will the Minister confirm what resources he has committed to the delivery of the Irish language strategy, including how many officials are working on it?

Mr Lyons: The Member will be aware that the work is for not just the Department for Communities but, through the cross-departmental working group, all Departments. He raises a good point about resource. We need to make sure that anything that is agreed is affordable, and that will be an important part of the work. That is the role of the cross-departmental working group, because, although we will always have the expert advisory panels and co-design groups that put information into the Department, it is the politicians and Ministers who, as decision makers, ultimately need to make sure that it is affordable.

Mr Carroll: Grand Central station is in an interface area and is used by people who use speak different languages, including a large number of Gaeilgeoirí. Going by many people's accounts, your intervention and opposition to bilingual signage are causing a lot of anger and frustration.

If you want dissuade people from that view and challenge Mr Kearney's accurate points, the best way to do so would be to withdraw your objection to bilingual signage on that site. Will you take this chance to do that?

Mr Lyons: No, I will not, because this is an important point of process. The law is in place and needs to be followed. I strongly contend — this is why I am intervening in the case — that the Minister for Infrastructure has not abided by the law and has stepped outside of it. There is a requirement to bring issues that are significant, cross-cutting or controversial to the Executive. This is clearly controversial. In my view, it is clearly cross-cutting, and, therefore, it should come to the Executive. Ministers should know better. It is entirely right and appropriate to do this. If a Minister acts outside that process, that is not only a breach of the law but, perhaps, shows that there is an understanding that the proposal would not have got the required support. We do not go on ourselves; we work together to find a way forward. This is an important point of law and was a crucial part of the negotiations that took place 20 years ago and led to the restoration of this place in 2007. It is imperative that the law is followed.

Mrs Cameron: Given the current budgetary environment, does the Minister agree that this House should have complete clarity on the costs associated with the Irish language strategy?

Mr Lyons: Yes, absolutely, and that is a key part of the cross-departmental working group's plans. The same approach was taken to the anti-poverty strategy. When we bring forward actions, we need to make sure that they are affordable and that we look at them in the round in the context of our wider priorities.

I know that the Chairman of the Communities Committee is very interested in cost. In fact, when I confirmed, after multiple Assembly questions, Committee letters and other correspondence, that there was no cost involved in updating the DFC logo, he still could not accept or understand that. That raises a wider question, because it is important —. [Interruption.]

Mr Lyons: I know that the Member was embarrassed by his performance at the Committee last week. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Lyons: I know that the truth can sometimes hurt, but it is very clear that he was not able to understand what those letters said. Perhaps the Assembly could provide some training in that regard. [Interruption.]

Mr Lyons: At a time when our finances are —.

The fact that he is shouting from a sedentary position confirms that he got it wrong, but I am more than happy to have a debate with him on those issues at another time.

We need to make sure that we consider carefully what we spend our money on and make sure that it is properly prioritised.

Mr Allen: There has been suggestion in various arenas that the Minister has taken a different approach to the language strategy compared with that which he has taken to other strategies. Can he set out whether the approach that he and the Department have taken has been the same across the board?

Mr Lyons: Yes, I can. There has been an entirely consistent approach. I have had to deal with the hand that I have been dealt. The co-design groups were in place, and I needed to take on board the work that they had done. However, important though that work was, it was important that it was brought into cross-departmental working groups so that we could work out what is affordable and deliverable. That is why we are going through the process. The Ulster-Scots and Irish language strategies, the anti-poverty strategy, the disability strategy and the disability and work plans have all gone through the same process. I want to make sure that we look at the problems that we are trying to tackle and find out how we can best tackle them and what is affordable and deliverable. I can assure the Member that I have been completely consistent and have taken the same approach to all those strategies.

Mr Lyons: I regularly engage with Executive colleagues and stress the need for greater collaboration to prevent homelessness. Homelessness prevention is a key objective in the housing supply strategy that I brought to the Executive, and it is a priority in the Executive's Programme for Government. Along with the Minister of Health, I have launched the New Foundations project to help prevent young people who are leaving care from entering homelessness.

That is a specific priority in the Programme for Government.

My Department will continue to work closely with partners across the Executive to explore opportunities for meaningful joint working and to ensure greater collaboration and engagement at strategic level to prevent homelessness. As part of that, officials are currently working with Departments to develop the next interdepartmental homelessness action plans.

Mr McGlone: Thank you, Minister. I will just pick up on that area that you were taking us into of cross-departmental collaboration. Can you specify how resources among Departments and, indeed, external agencies are being coordinated to ensure that homeless people, particularly those who are vulnerable due to mental health needs, are being looked after?

Mr Lyons: Absolutely. The Member is right to raise that issue. When you consider some of the most acute need that we see in our society and those who are right on the edges and fringes of it, you often see that those issues are not just related to the absence of housing but to other health — particularly mental health — issues that are taking place. That is why there is close collaboration between the Department for Communities and the Department of Health. Officials work closely to address those issues. That is why you will see specific actions coming forward in the first action plan for the housing supply strategy as well.

Mr Wilson: Minister, can you advise the House on what steps you have taken to enhance homelessness prevention?

Mr Lyons: Yes, absolutely. We have made more progress in the strategic shift towards homelessness prevention in the past two years than my predecessors were able to make in the entirety of their tenures. Where have the funding allocations come from? They have come from the Finance Ministry. Why was homelessness prevention not a priority when that party also held the Finance portfolio? In spite of the budget allocations that I continue to receive, this year alone, I have ring-fenced an additional £2·5 million for strategic homelessness prevention, provided £3 million to the New Foundations project and provided an additional £1 million to bring forward new and extended Supporting People services. That is in addition to the £4·3 million allocated to the Housing Executive for community homelessness prevention activities. I am proud of the change of approach that has been taken since I have come into the Department. However, I am not stopping here: I will continue to deliver, especially for those most in need.

Mr Blair: Has the Minister met those who provide front-line homelessness services, especially those who have experienced issues with the severe weather emergency protocol in recent weeks?

Mr Lyons: Yes, I have met organisations that are involved in that. I believe that, next week or possibly the week after, I will be going out at night to meet those who are directly on the front line.

Mrs Dillon: On the back of the previous question, to which, I believe, the Minister answered that he would go out next week with those organisations, will he go out to meet the people who are homeless — people who come from our communities and are somebody's child, somebody's mother, somebody's brother — to get a better understanding of the challenges that they face and why they have ended up homeless? You talked about the resources that you are using: we need to understand whether that money is being best spent.

Mr Lyons: Yes, absolutely. That is why I will go out at night to meet those who are most affected and see for myself the impact that we are having and what, if any, changes can be made. I am more than happy to report to the House on that. Absolutely, we need to ensure that we spend money as wisely as we can. It can go towards good projects, but are there better initiatives that we can look at? I am happy to explore all those because we are talking about people who, often due to health and mental health issues, are right on the fringes. We need to provide them with the support to get back to where they need to be.

Mr Lyons: The 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to strengthen political, cultural, economic and community links, given the historical connections that exist between Northern Ireland and the United States.

I provided £426,000 to a wide range of partners and community organisations for projects that will commemorate and recognise the unique contribution that early settlers from Northern Ireland played in the foundation of the United States and will support and promote our culture, heritage and arts sectors as well as our tourism offering.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, I strongly support celebrating the contribution of people from all over this island, including the Scots Irish — the Ulster Scots — to the United States. However, it is important to be clear on a couple of historical points. No one migrated from Northern Ireland, because it did not exist in the 18th century. That is not to diminish the contribution of those who left Ulster at that time. It is also true to say that the Ulster Scots who made their place in the United States and built that republic free from the Crown, including people such as Andrew Jackson, whose home in Tennessee I have been to; Chester A Arthur, whose home you went to recently in Antrim —

Mr Speaker: Good history lecture, Mr O'Toole, but we need questions.

Mr O'Toole: — and Benjamin Franklin, were, by definition, republicans. They believed in a democracy with citizens independent under the law. They did not believe in Donald Trump and the autocracy that he is building. Will you guarantee that public money will be spent celebrating not the corrupt Donald Trump but the historical links between this place and the United States?

Mr Lyons: I say this to Mr O'Toole: get over it, OK? Some people out there are determined to highlight the fact that, yes, it is about the independence of the United States and that, of course, there were differences with Britain at that time. That is OK. We have gotten over that, and he should too.

I am trying to highlight the importance of the role played by those who left these shores — Ulster or whatever term the Member wants to use. I want to make sure that we highlight that. Doing so helps us to build links with the United States. It gives us another hook to make sure that people are interested. I am not ashamed about doing that not only because of the economic and tourism benefits that can come from it but because we are investing in cultural, arts and musical organisations. There is benefit to us in all of that.

The Member mentioned, as many others have, the difference of opinion that some have with the current occupant of the White House. I take different views from the people who sit in the White House. I visited the White House when Joe Biden was president, after he oversaw the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan that left another generation subjugated under the rule of the Taliban. I am sure that I strongly disagree with many US presidents on many points, but I am there to engage not just with the current Administration but with wider business leaders and those involved in culture and the arts. I will be proud to represent Northern Ireland and to show up, stand up and speak up for it. I wish that others would welcome that and do the same.

Mr Brooks: I welcome the Minister's work on the issue and his leadership in going out to Washington in March. It was great to hear Secretary of State Rubio mention the connection with the Scotch Irish or Ulster Scots in a speech last week. That speaks to the influence of some of the work that has been done. Does the Minister welcome the joint proposal by the SDLP and the DUP to support the erection of a statue of John Dunlap?

Mr Lyons: I absolutely welcome that. I welcome working closely with Mr McCrossan on that. John Dunlap, at 10 years of age, left Strabane to go to the United States and made an incredible contribution there. I thank Mr McCrossan and Mr Tom Buchanan for their proposal. I have instructed officials to progress that work at pace.

I, too, welcome the comments made by Secretary of State Marco Rubio in his recent speech, in which he recognised the contribution by the:

By the way, such things do not come about by mistake. The fact that the US Department of State recognises the importance of those contributions is testament to the work that has been done to raise the profile of those early Ulster settlers. People should welcome that.

I am glad that the SDLP sees that as an opportunity. It is unfortunate that we have not got Sinn Féin over the line on that yet. It is being very short-sighted in that regard; in fact, the Deputy Chair of the Communities Committee called some of the projects "vanity projects" and "sectarian" projects. That is very disappointing. I urge Sinn Féin to recognise that there is nothing to fear from Ulster Scots or from equality. I hope that it will reconsider its views and position on the matter.

Mr McMurray: That interaction made me think of 'Amazing Grace', a hymn written by an Englishman washed up in Donegal on his way to America, but that is beside the point.

Can the Minister outline how value for money and long-term public benefit have been assessed when allocating funding for the USA-NI250 project?

Mr Lyons: It is a really positive move, because it means that, as so many Members in the Chamber often call for, there will be more money for the arts and culture. Let me go through some of the projects that have been funded. For the National Museums NI project 'The Stories of Us' there was £50,000 to tell the stories of people who left Ulster and their influence in the USA. Ulster University has received £50,000 for its project. Tourism NI has received £21,000 for experience development, because it sees value in this as well. Tourism Ireland is also investing significantly because it sees the benefit from this, as do many other groups and organisations. We will of course review all those and get feedback, and I will be happy to update the Member on that.

Mr Lyons: The UK Government’s public tennis court refurbishment fund is available only in Great Britain. Therefore, no money from it was allocated to Northern Ireland.

Mr Burrows: In correspondence to us, the Department of Finance states that £0·6 million was allocated to Northern Ireland, but it cannot explain where the money was spent. Can you shed any light on that?

Mr Lyons: If that has come as a Barnett consequential, it has not come through to me. Unfortunately, that is often the case when it comes to the Department for Communities. Throughout the breadth of my portfolio, millions and millions of pounds every year do not make it to the Department, so I would be interested to find out more on that to see why that was not allocated.

Mr Bradley: Since that funding was raised, can you give us an update on where the Olympic legacy fund stands?

Mr Lyons: One of the reasons why the Olympic legacy fund was put in place was to ensure that there would be funding streams available to sports clubs so that they could apply. Sport NI has now approved 37 projects across nine different sports and all 11 council areas, totalling £1 million. An additional 39 projects, with a total funding request of £1·2 million, were held in reserve, and I am pleased to confirm that I was able to provide an additional £1·2 million of capital funding to the programme through in-year easements to ensure that the fund could better meet those demands and maximise benefits to our sporting sector and local communities.

Mr Lyons: Subject to the consent of the Assembly to the legislative consent motion, the universal credit two-child limit will be removed from April 2026. That represents a significant step in supporting low-income families and reducing child poverty in Northern Ireland. It is a change that I wholeheartedly welcome. Following the change, households that are currently affected by the two-child policy will see an increase in their underlying UC entitlement. That is expected to reduce any UC transitional element that may be in payment. My officials are undertaking analytical work to determine the specific impacts of the change.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you, Minister, for confirming that. I am greatly worried by the fact that we are giving with one hand and taking with the other with the transitional protection and the removal of the two-child limit. Can the Minister confirm whether his Department has modelled how many families will likely face a deficit when this comes into play?

Mr Lyons: As I said in response to the Member's first question, officials are currently undertaking an analysis of that. We will be more than happy to share that data when we can.

Mr Lyons: As the local growth fund will be administered directly by the UK Government, my Department is unable to assess in detail the impact of the potential loss of funding on the community and voluntary sector. Economic inactivity rates remain too high in Northern Ireland, but it is not an issue that my Department or one sector can address alone. However, I will continue to push for the importance of that to be recognised.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Minister. Can you explain what steps your Department will take to prevent vital community services from totally collapsing?

Mr Lyons: I recognise the concern that many across the community and voluntary sector have expressed. That is why I was surprised by the lack of reference to it in the Finance Minister's Budget. However, I will continue to discuss the issue with Executive colleagues so that we can explore solutions that will prevent some of the more detrimental impacts that the reduced Budgets proposed by the UK Government will have on community and voluntary organisations.

I am more than happy to work with other Departments in order to assist, but, ultimately, the Finance Minister is leading on that work. I again urge him to consider the matter urgently.

Ms Forsythe: Minister, you mentioned the lack of reference to the local growth fund in the multi-year Budget. I was also disappointed to see that. Will your Department or any Department be in a position to fill any of the gaps caused by the reduction in funding for the local growth fund?

Mr Lyons: That is why I wanted to see some support in the three-year Budget, but it is not there. As always, we will look at some of the issues that are brought forward to see how we can help. I am certainly not making promises — we all understand the difficulties around it — but we need to support those who do so much to support the work of the Executive.

Mr Speaker: We now move to topical questions.

Mr Lyons: The Housing Executive has informed me that SWEP was in place yesterday evening and operated as intended.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for that answer. The information that I have received from one of the front-line organisations that helps people in the darkest of hours and that, I presume, the Minister will meet shortly is that the protocol had not been activated, so there is some confusion there.

Given the loss of 58 lives and the growing concern across our communities, will the Minister commit to obtaining and publishing the requested figures from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive on emergency accommodation applications and unmet need and to urgently reviewing SWEP to ensure that it is guided by risk to life and delivered with dignity, compassion and humanity?

Mr Lyons: That is certainly the outcome that we all want to see. There seems to be some confusion around that, so if I can provide any clarity and additional information, I am happy to do so. I hope that the Member recognises my commitment to making sure that the protocol is stood up.

When I entered office, the budget in 2023-24 was £9,837. That has since increased to £51,523. I recognise that it is a serious issue, and I want to do everything that I can to make sure that support is provided. I am happy to provide that additional information for him.

Mr Lyons: Absolutely. You will see proposals coming forward in the action plans. Work is ongoing with other Departments. We are also conducting research on holiday lets, which are becoming a growing problem, according to some of the anecdotal evidence that we have. We need to do proper research on the issue. That is going on as we speak and will continue this year. I want to make sure that we deal with vacant properties. There is also an element of fraud involved. We will bring in new measures to crack down on that.

We are in a housing crisis. We need to make sure that we use the homes that we have and that they go to those who need them. That will be a bit of cross-departmental work. There will be a role for the Department for the Economy and the Department of Finance in relation to rates. I stand ready to work with Executive colleagues to tackle the issue.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you, Minister. We are well aware of the empty homes strategy, which has been out of date since 2018. You indicated that you do not plan to refresh the strategy any time soon. Given the significant housing supply crisis that we face, do you not agree that it is time that we refreshed that strategy and put in place proposals to bring empty homes back into use?

Mr Lyons: The Member is right: the issue is about housing supply, which is why it will be part of the housing supply strategy and the action plans. It should be incorporated into that rather than another stand-alone document. I am happy to update her on that when the action plans are agreed by the Executive.

Mr Lyons: The House will be aware that the Executive agreed targets for social housebuilding in the Programme for Government and the housing supply strategy. Historically, my Department has consistently received insufficient funding from the Department of Finance, and that has meant that we have not been able to meet those targets. I have put proposals to the Executive to have the full amount required for the social housing development programme ring-fenced at the start of the financial year. Doing that would ensure that we meet our targets and also that we spend the money in the best possible way. Building social homes is complex, and, too often, my Department has had to rely on capital allocations late in the year. That is not good enough any more, so proper funding allocations for targets must be agreed by all parties around the Executive table.

Mr Wilson: Like me, is the Minister surprised that Sinn Féin has not welcomed that proposal, given how often it talks about the provision of social housing being one of its political priorities?

Mr Lyons: Absolutely. It is a peculiar attitude to take to social housing. That attitude was laid bare at the Communities Committee last week. I had presented a very sensible proposal, which was —. [Inaudible.]

A Member: Here we go again.

Mr Wilson: You hit a nerve.

Mr Lyons: All that I can say is that there are people in my Department who are paid to watch the Communities Committee. They probably need to be paid to watch it. I received a report of the session, and I watched some of it back. It surprises me that Sinn Féin and the Alliance Party did not take the opportunity to agree that the money should be ring-fenced. Any consideration of what I had said in previous meetings would have made Committee members aware that it is a very simple, straightforward proposal. At no time did I introduce the notion of a business case requirement, but, over the course of the meeting, the Chair introduced the idea that I had said that a business case was coming. It then became an accepted requirement, as the Committee's confused exchanges continued. It is fair to say that that Committee meeting was an absolute farce. The proposal was very simple and straightforward: do we believe that money for social housing should be ring-fenced? There is no business case.

Mr Gildernew: You do not like scrutiny.

Mr Lyons: There is no business case. Do you not accept that? [Interruption.]

Those parties do not accept it.

Mr Gildernew: You do not like scrutiny.

Mr Lyons: Scrutiny? There is no scrutiny from that Committee. It is a farce. At every single opportunity, it is a mess. The Committee mentioned a business case 35 times. There is no business case. Do we agree that ring-fenced money should be made available for social housing? I do, but those parties do not.

Mr Lyons: I fully accept that the severe weather emergency protocol is something that the Department follows. It is not a statutory requirement, but I have increased funding for the protocol, because I recognise its importance. I cannot speak to the confusion that the Member references, because I have been told that the protocol was in place yesterday evening and that it operated as intended. If I am wrong, I am more than happy to take back what I said and make sure that we do something about it. I have focused on the matter and made sure that we provided additional resources. I will continue to give those who deploy the protocol what they need and to provide any information that I can to help prevent any further confusion.

Mrs Mason: Minister, you therefore cannot explain why there was so much confusion last night. You are very fond of showboating, theatrics and attacking and trying to belittle people who try to scrutinise you. Minister, you have nothing to fear from a little bit of scrutiny. Perhaps you should realise that. When are you going to step up and protect those people?

Mr Lyons: I have already set out my position. I said that I am happy to provide additional information to the House. She rolls her eyes and shakes her head, but I gave a direct answer to her question. I will provide the additional information. She does not need to act like a child when it comes to that issue. I have been clear in saying to her that I will provide the additional information that is required. We will get to the bottom of that; we will provide that. I have a problem with her so-called scrutiny because she throws mud and does not really have any sensible questions to ask: it is always just attack, attack, attack from the Member, all the time. It is a serious issue. I have followed it up with the funding that it requires, and I will continue to do what I can to make sure that what we need is in place.

Mr Lyons: Work on that continues. The consultation has closed and come back to Departments to consider. At that stage, it is for Departments to consider what additional measures can be put in place. However, I hope that the Departments will look at their priorities and at the additional measures so that we can make sure that we make a difference.

Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for that reply. I am sure that he will understand that I hoped for a bit more information on committed funding. What direct engagement has taken place with other Departments on how they can contribute to the anti-poverty strategy? Does he have a commitment on it from any of them?

Mr Lyons: That work has gone on through the cross-departmental working group. We fed information back to it, and we look forward to discussing that further. Ultimately, those conversations will need to take place at the Executive table as well.

Mr Speaker: Sinéad Ennis is not in her place.

Mr Lyons: I have been a Member of the House for more than a decade, and, to answer the question directly and fairly, I do not think that I have seen a more dysfunctional Committee in all my time. We have a Chairman who cannot read letters, as was so brilliantly exposed by Pam Cameron; a Deputy Chairperson who thinks that money going to Ulster Scots is sectarian; and another Committee member who thinks that she is a legislative geek but caused the Committee to require a full U-turn on her daft proposal after it received legal advice. As I mentioned previously, in one meeting, the Committee mentioned 35 times a business case that does not exist.

For the first time — [Interruption.]

For the first time ever, we have a Communities Committee that cannot even agree that it would like to see ring-fenced funding so that we can meet our social housing targets. That is my analysis, but I will let the public make up their own mind.

Mr Brooks: The Chair of the Committee seems to be getting himself very exercised this afternoon. That Committee is refusing to give the Minister its support for his ambitions on social housing. Will the Minister do everything that he can to ensure that the necessary budget for social housing, which all parties agreed to, will be found?

Mr Speaker: I remind the questioner that questions should not contain a request for expressions of opinion, legal or otherwise. Minister, I do not think that the second question did that.

Mr Lyons: Thank you, Mr Speaker. On a serious point, although I may not be getting support from others around the House for social housing targets, I remain committed to the targets because I understand how important it is that we build social housing and use all the levers at our disposal to do that. That is why I am making the housing association grants go further, and that is why I am looking at opportunities to better use public-sector land. I want to make sure that we build more homes. I hope that I have the support of other parties to do so.

Mr Lyons: That work is ongoing. I do not have anything concrete for the Member, but I will write to him today with the latest update that we have, although it may not be complete.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Perfect. That ends Question Time to the Minister for Communities. Just give us a couple of minutes.

Mrs Mason: On a point of order, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

Will you review the fact that the Minister called me "a child" today? That is the second time that he has done this: he referred to me not being "a grown-up" the last time that I asked him a question. Could he answer me in writing, because he did not answer my question?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Minister should not call any Member a child. The Minister can answer questions in whatever way he wants. Regrettably, there are loads of times — I have fallen foul of it myself — when we could use better language, descriptions and adjectives. I will take that back and ask the Speaker to review Hansard. If you feel that you did not get a response, you could write to the Minister and get your question answered in writing.

Mr Lyons: Further to that point of order, I am happy to write to the Member. I take the issue very seriously. If the Member has more specific questions that she wants to ask around it, I am happy to provide that information to her. A point has been made that we need to have more clarity on what happened last night and on other nights. I am happy to provide that to the Member, because it is a serious issue. I hope that she takes that in the spirit in which it is intended.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I have come back to the Chair, and sunshine has descended on the Assembly. [Laughter.]

It is great to see. There are no more points of order. Fine.

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

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

Mr Beattie: I beg to move:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have ten minutes to propose and ten minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes. Doug, please open the debate.

Mr Beattie: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The motion is moved against the backdrop of all our political parties looking at the legacy mechanisms that have been proposed by the Labour Government. We are all in a position to try to shape those legacy mechanisms, which will exist through the proposed Legacy Commission, but I do not think that any political party has yet fully endorsed them, or said, "No, we don't support them at all". We are all working to see what we can do to make the legacy mechanism that best meets victims' and societal need. It is about shaping the legacy Bill. The motion is an attempt to shape the Bill. It comes on the back of an amendment to the Bill to include sexual violence as a bespoke criterion, along with injury and death, for an investigation by the Legacy Commission.

I must be clear from the start: any person who has experienced sexual violence, whether that be in the past or the present and whether it is Troubles-related or not, should use our criminal justice system now. I urge them all to go to the police. However, the motion tries to address the sexual violence and child abuse that still echoes from our troubled past, and the persistent fear caused by republican and loyalist terrorist groups. Many years after the Belfast Agreement, that fear still exists in some communities. It is unspoken, controlling, isolating and leaves victims afraid to come forward lest they be seen as a traitor to their community, even many years after the abuse. It is in this instance that the unique attributes of the Legacy Commission may well give those victims hope.

When we talk about the Troubles, the images that normally flash through our minds are stark: soldiers on street corners; the plume of smoke after a bombing; and the crack of gunfire. We think of conflict fought with guns and bombs: a political battle between armed factions. However, for as long as war has existed, sexual violence has also been used as a weapon of war, and the terrorist campaign in Northern Ireland is no different. That weapon does not discriminate between religions or ideologies but preys on the vulnerable; it leaves no rubble but destroys lives just as completely; and it has historically been neglected. For 30 years, while the casualty count rose, a different kind of violence was happening in the shadows. That violence was facilitated by the unique conditions of the Troubles: the breakdown of normal policing; closed structures of armed groups; and a culture of silence that was enforced by the very organisations that claimed to protect their communities.

Without a doubt, the Troubles were overwhelmingly dominated by men — by men. In working-class neighbourhoods, the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) was often viewed as the enemy. In republican areas especially, the police were not welcomed, and people in many areas looked for local solutions to serious crimes, as going to the police was frowned on. Into that vacuum stepped the paramilitaries and terrorists. They became the law. They punished petty criminals and antisocial elements with kangaroo courts, brutal beatings and shootings. That monopoly on power created a terrifying vulnerability for victims of sexual crimes. If the police were the enemy, who could a young woman turn to when her abuser wore a balaclava?

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way. Does the Member agree that many young women on both sides of the community did not go to the police for fear of retribution?

Mr Beattie: Absolutely. In that very short sentence, you hit the nail on the head. The Troubles created an environment in which they stayed away from the law enforcement agencies.

That leads us to a painful reality: sexual abuse was not just a by-product of the Troubles; it was enabled and covered up by the Troubles. There was a paramilitary justice system on both sides. We saw that clearly in the case of Máiría Cahill, a young woman from a prominent republican family who was raped by a senior member of the IRA in west Belfast when she was just a teenager. Bound by her community's distrust of the police, she did what was expected of her: she reported the crime to the IRA and trusted it to deliver justice. Instead, she was subjected to a secret interrogation in a community centre, re-traumatised by her own community and eventually told that her rapist had been cleared by the organisation. She was warned not to go to the police. The message was chillingly clear: protecting the political movement was more important than protecting its women. Thankfully, she did not stay quiet but was vocal, and I commend her for her courage.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for giving way. Does the Member agree that, given what she has been through, Máiría is an incredibly courageous survivor and an incredibly powerful advocate for women in today's world?

Mr Beattie: Absolutely. I have met Máiría on many occasions, and she is exactly all the things that you described. I do not think that anybody here can say anything other than that about her.

That example was not in isolation. Historians and former members have noted that the IRA's civil administration team often dealt with sex offenders not by punishing them but by moving them out of the area. They were spirited away; as one source put it, not out of kindness but to protect the reputation of the organisation. Rape was seen as a stain, a political liability and an embarrassment to the cause. That reality was starkly emphasised by the rape of 17-year-old Paudie McGahon by an IRA man who had been moved to a safe house in the Irish Republic. Instead of facing justice for rape, the rapist was exiled. The same dynamics existed in loyalist areas, where a rigid militaristic culture created the same opportunities for abuse and the same institutional pressures to stay silent. The victims were left in a kind of limbo. They would not go to the police because the police were the enemy. They could not rely on the paramilitaries because the paramilitaries were the abusers, or were protecting the abusers. They were trapped in a silence that was enforced by the very nature of the conflict.

The way in which women were targeted can be viewed in the brutal ritualised act of gender-based violence known as tarring and feathering. That was public humiliation directed only at women and girls. It was symbolic violence to drive community compliance through fear — shaving women's heads to remove a symbol of femininity. Those who were subjected to that brutal form of violence should not be forgotten, and they must be given the opportunity to seek justice as part of our legacy mechanisms. The retention of biometrics, including DNA, is set to change with the Justice Bill that is going through the Assembly. However, there will be exemptions for legacy cases to allow retention of those biometrics. Adding sexual crimes investigation criteria to the Bill that will establish the Legacy Commission, as proposed in the motion, will ensure that those biometrics will be retained.

The Good Friday Agreement of 1998 ended the political violence, but it did not end this legacy. For decades, the story of sexual violence during the Troubles was a story yet to be told. The peace process focused on decommissioning weapons and releasing prisoners. It largely failed to acknowledge the suffering of the survivors of sexual violence. That silence is its own form of violence. It tells survivors that their suffering was collateral damage, less important than the larger political narrative.

It is only recently, through the courage of women such as Máiría Cahill and projects using artistic storytelling and theatre, that those voices are finally breaking through. They are forcing us to widen our lens and see the Troubles for what it truly was: not just a war between states and paramilitaries but one where the bodies of women and children were often treated as part of the battlefield. The use of sexual violence by terrorists and paramilitaries during the Troubles was not an accident: it was a feature of a conflict in which power went unchecked, and justice was held hostage by politics. We must commit to uncovering those hidden histories. We must listen the voices that were silenced for so long. Be it violence against women and girls in the future, the present or the past, we must take a stand. Where there are barriers, we must overcome them. By ensuring that sexual violence is included in the legacy Bill, we can go some way towards doing that.

Mrs Dillon: I begin by acknowledging the harm and trauma that was endured by all those who have suffered sexual violence, whether that was during the conflict or outside of it. Without exception, it was wrong, cruel and should not have happened. Crimes of rape, child sexual abuse, sexualised assault and many other intimate violations that were used to coerce, threaten or degrade anyone are among the most intrusive and devastating harms that anyone can endure. Where such allegations still exist, the PSNI should and must investigate. The impact of such abuse endures for a lifetime. For far too long, victims of sexual violence that happened during the conflict have been among the least heard in our society. That is not acceptable. We must support victims to break their silence.

Ms Finnegan: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. Does she agree that, all too often, perpetrators exploit their position of power and authority to manipulate, control and, ultimately, abuse and further damage their victims?

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

Mrs Dillon: I absolutely do agree with that. It has been said many times in the Chamber and needs to keep being repeated.

While we are concerned about the direction of travel with the legacy Bill and the prioritisation of the needs of British state forces over victims, my party and I will support the motion. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate and discussion on overlooked crimes. We know that many victims were silenced by fear. We also know that many others were failed by the state institutions that should have protected them and did not. Many crimes also went unreported at a time when there was little confidence in state authorities and for fear that information would be used for other purposes; indeed, at a time when the state itself was carrying out abuses. In 2026, we have a responsibility to ensure that the full range of those harmful and intrusive experiences of sexual abuse are acknowledged and that the proper support services are in place.

Turning to the present context of legacy and the ongoing Westminster legislative process, we genuinely need to ask ourselves whether, if we are serious about healing the wounds of the past, we are ready to lift the lid on all intimate and invasive harms that were suffered during the conflict period. Dealing with sexual abuse in a legacy context means that we also need to talk about abuse in institutional settings. The indignity and violations of strip-searching, forced washes, intimate searches and mirror searches were common practice in Long Kesh, Armagh Gaol, Maghaberry prison and other prisons on these islands. Strip-searching in a prison environment is a tool of intimidation and domination. It was an intimate and brutal violation and was carried out on thousands of prisoners, including young prisoners who were under the age of 18. It was mainstream and constitutes a grave human rights violation in every credible legal framework that is available to us. It also means that those who were tortured and suffered harm of an intimate nature in interrogation centres must have their voices heard.

There needs to be a thorough investigation into the serious allegations of abuse of young boys in Kincora boys' home, where growing evidence shows that British state intelligence agencies embedded known paedophiles. Why were such practices covered up? Complaints that were made about the failure of police to investigate allegations of sexual abuse in the Belfast boys' home were legitimate and justified, as the Police Ombudsman highlighted in 2022. Clearly, had the RUC taken appropriate action at that time, many young boys would not have been abused.

Answers are needed as to why the RUC did not act on information provided to it from 1973 to 1976.

Under article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, sexual violence is categorically understood as:

It carries with it an absolute duty on the state to investigate, provide accountability and ensure that victims have access to justice. That obligation does not fade with time. The women, peace and security framework, including UN Security Council resolution 1325 and its successors, demands that conflict-related sexual violence be recognised, investigated and addressed as a distinct and serious harm. Those commitments apply in full here. There is no room for ambiguity and no justification for exclusion.

I will conclude by making it clear that we are committed to ensuring that the rights of all victims are respected and upheld. No harm inflicted by anyone on anyone can be minimised. Sinn Féin believes that any credible legacy mechanism must explicitly examine all harms, including those of a sexual nature. Only legacy structures that are grounded in human rights principles and that command confidence will provide victims with reassurance that their voices will be heard and their experiences acknowledged. That goes across the board for everybody.

As the proposer of the motion said, sexual offences that were carried out against anyone in the past by anyone can and should be investigated by the PSNI. It does not need to wait for the legislation. However, we absolutely support the sentiment of the motion. Victims of rape or child abuse do not have to wait. I encourage anyone who has been a victim of abuse to come forward to the PSNI without delay, because they deserve justice, and those responsible deserve to be punished.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the UUP Members who tabled this important motion. Crimes of a sexual nature, including child sexual abuse, are among the most serious and damaging crimes that can occur. They have a profound and long-lasting impact on victims and their families. Victims and survivors of sexual abuse deserve to be seen, heard and protected. We recognise the immense harm caused by sexual abuse and the lasting physical and psychological impact that it has on those affected. Such crimes do not fade with time. Time does not heal those wounds or erase those crimes.

The House has seen through the historical institutional abuse and truth recovery processes and the investigations of historical clerical child abuse how important acknowledgement, truth and justice are for victims. For many, being recognised and believed is a vital part of that journey. Sexual abuse during the Troubles is too often overlooked in wider discussions about the violence of the period. That is wrong, and it must be addressed. Sexual violence occurred during the Troubles. Its impact was real, and it continues to be felt today. Excluding those crimes from legacy mechanisms risks sending the message that some victims matter less than others, and that is not acceptable. I acknowledge the good work being undertaken by the Executive Office through the ending violence against women and girls strategy and the strategy for victims and survivors. That work is important. It does not, however, remove the need for victims of Troubles-related sexual abuse to have access to legacy investigations.

We want all victims of sexual abuse to be supported and have access to services that meet their needs for as long as that support is required. Victims should not be excluded because of the nature of the crime committed against them. That is why we support the motion and call on the UK Government to ensure that victims of Troubles-related sexual violence are included in legacy arrangements. Crimes of a sexual nature, including rape and child sexual abuse, should be recognised as a separate qualifying category, alongside serious injury and death. Any approach must be victim-centred and trauma-informed. Victims' needs and experiences must be at the heart of the decision-making process, and care must be taken to avoid retraumatisation.

The motion is about fairness and recognition. It is about ensuring that victims of sexual abuse are no longer overlooked, and I support it.

Ms Bradshaw: I support the motion and thank the Ulster Unionist Party for bringing this important debate to the Chamber. I start by paying tribute to the victims who have spoken out, including Máiría Cahill. It is really important that we hear their voices and act upon them. I should emphasise that the key reason for our support for the motion today is the principle behind it, which is that sexual crime should be recognised for what it is: the very worst form of abuse in society. Sexual violence, including child sexual abuse, is among the most devastating crimes that a human being can suffer. Its effects on the victim are horrifying, yet they are not confined to the victim. The trauma often ripples out to family, friends and communities and, ultimately, touches society. Therefore, it follows, in principle, that victims of sexual crime must have a clear path to recognition, acknowledgement, truth and justice. I concur with Mr Beattie and Mrs Dillon about encouraging people to engage with the criminal justice system now if they feel able to.

There is little doubt that victims of the Troubles have for far too long been overlooked and that victims of sexual violence during the Troubles, in particular, have not been sufficiently prioritised. That is an unpalatable truth that the motion rightly speaks to. Sadly, we must also be honest about the challenges. As a member of the Committee for the Executive Office, I know that legacy processes are inherently extraordinarily difficult. Even leaving aside the length of time that has passed and the inherent complexities, developing a process that has widespread trust and can deliver appropriate acknowledgement and meaningful access to justice will be frustrating and arduous. Therefore, it appears to make sense that the starting point for such a process will be with institutions already in existence.

At the same time, we must acknowledge the second element of the motion, which calls for such crimes to be included in the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. We fully support engagement with the UK Government and ensuring that victims' concerns are heard, so, in principle, we have no difficulty with that. Such a legislative intervention at this stage would not be straightforward, but it would be the right one. Care must be taken to ensure that any amendment does not unintentionally create legal or procedural complications that could delay or undermine the process of building a system that will deliver recognition and justice to the victims. Dialogue and negotiation involving the new Legacy Commission may, in the end, be the most practical and effective route, regardless of legislative interventions. Nevertheless, we have no issue with exploring whether a legislative intervention may be helpful.

I will add, from my experience of Executive Office issues, that support for victims must extend beyond investigations. I concur with Pam's comments around the victims and survivors strategy and the excellent work that is being delivered by community and voluntary groups across Northern Ireland. Specialist support services for victims are truly life-changing. Recognition and truth are important, but ongoing practical support is necessary.

In closing, I will be clear: the path going forward must be about acknowledging the suffering that, too often, has been deprioritised. It is about sending a message that, even decades later, victims of sexual violence during the Troubles have not been forgotten and that their suffering is being taken seriously by the Assembly. It is about building a process that will, at long last, enable them to feel a sense of acknowledgement. The road will be long, but that is why we should start it now.

Ms McLaughlin: I welcome the opportunity to speak to today's motion and to place on record the SDLP's support for it. I also note that both SDLP MPs are co-signatories of the amendment to the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill that seeks to give legislative effect to what we are debating today. The SDLP further urges Members across the House to have their colleagues support the amendment challenging the limited definition of "serious physical or mental harm". That definition matters because it is drawn too narrowly. Victims whose suffering was real, lasting and devastating risk being excluded yet again.

At the heart of the motion lies an uncomfortable truth about our past. For too long, the narrative of the Troubles has often been framed in such a way as to soften or obscure the lived reality of the many victims. The full story is not simply one of causes or communities; it is a story of profound harm. It is the story of women who were subjected to violence and intimidation; of abuse that went unreported because reporting was impossible; of individuals who wielded power without accountability; and of families who were forced to leave their home in order to seek nothing more than safety and normality, which were sometimes very hard to find.

Women in particular paid a heavy price. Many endured domestic abuse, sexual violence and coercion in circumstances where fear and silence were enforced. They would have been called traitors to their community and neighbours. They lived in fear. Too often, their suffering was overshadowed by other atrocities or was dismissed entirely, and that must be acknowledged with absolute honesty. We call on the Assembly, London, Dublin and all those with influence over legacy to recognise clearly that gender-based violence formed part of the lived experience of the conflict and its aftermath.

I turn to the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. Significant challenges remain if the legislation is to command confidence. It is welcome that we are now discussing a bilateral approach between the British and Irish Governments through the joint framework. That marks a necessary shift away from the unilateralism that characterised earlier efforts. The previous legacy legislation was deeply flawed. It was rejected by every party in Northern Ireland and by the overwhelming majority of victims' and survivors' groups. It diminished the rule of law, created the perception of a hierarchy of victims and undermined confidence that justice and human rights were being upheld. The joint framework at least creates a space for more credible pathways. It recognises that the consequences of the Troubles were never confined to Northern Ireland: lives were shattered across these islands. Communities everywhere carry the legacy of the violence.

I particularly welcome the ending of the immunity scheme. Victims have too often seen arrangements that appear to place perpetrators beyond the reach of justice. Time and again, victims were asked to accept compromise while their suffering remained unresolved. Moving away from immunity is, therefore, essential to rebuild trust. Let us be clear: violence was not inevitable — not at all — and many of us chose not to go down that route. Violence was a choice. Directing terrorism was a choice. The use of agents, collusion and unlawful action were choices. Those choices had consequences for innocent people whose lives were changed for ever.

Disclosure must be central to any credible legacy process. Security institutions must accept that, where collusion occurred, it, too, was a crime against humanity. It cannot be shielded by excessive secrecy or the misuse of national security provisions. Without genuine transparency, any new legacy mechanism will only struggle to gain the confidence of victims and the wider public. Victims and families have waited decades for truth. They deserve more than practical accounts or carefully managed narratives. They deserve the full, unvarnished truth, however horrible it is, about how both state and non-state actors operated. Anything less will perpetuate hurt, mistrust and injustice.

Miss Hargey: I welcome the opportunity to speak in today's debate. As we have heard from everyone who has spoken so far, our society is still impacted on by the legacy of the conflict. That legacy impacted on our communities in different forms: death and injury; trauma; mental health; and discriminatory policies and planning that physically contained and segregated our communities. Sexual violence was part of that legacy, and I acknowledge that it caused huge harm and trauma across our communities. When looking at the impact of our conflict, we see that those voices have not always been heard in the societal conversation. That is on top of a history of poor treatment of victims and survivors of such abuse across our island by state institutions and others in our society, resulting in many crimes not being reported or victims being silenced. We must break that silence.

As was mentioned earlier, we saw that abuse come to light as a result of the Kincora scandal. There is growing evidence that British state intelligence agencies had knowledge of sexual abuse but did not intervene. A Police Ombudsman's report in 2022 outlined how the complaints that were made about the failure of the police to investigate sexual abuse in Belfast boys' homes were legitimate and justified. Had appropriate action been taken at the time, children would not have been further abused. It is important to state that, where any allegations exist, the PSNI should investigate them. There have been efforts made to look at institutional abuse. In addressing legacy, we must ensure that legislation is victim-centred and, importantly, compliant with international human rights law. There should be no amnesty, nor should there be a hierarchy of victims.

In dealing with the past, we must also recognise that there are different perspectives and narratives and that all voices must be heard and included. My own father suffered torture and abuse at the hands of the state by RUC Special Branch when he was taken to Palace Barracks. He was forced down on the ground and physically tortured, including torture of a sexual nature, by way of electric shock treatment on his private parts. They laughed and shouted at him that he would never have children. Thankfully, he had eight children. That torture continued when he was hooded and forced to open his legs. A foreign object was inserted deep into his body, which ruptured his digestive system, resulting in him having his spleen and half his bowel removed. That torture left him with long-term health impacts, and he had to go through 10 major surgeries as a result. It also resulted in his early death, leaving my mother widowed at 52 years of age with seven children — they lost their firstborn. I therefore know at first-hand the direct impact that that type of physical and sexual abuse can have, not just on the victims but on their families. I know about the violation, the indignity, the forced strip-searching and the long-term and lasting impacts of torture.

We know that that practice did not take place in isolation. It happened to many, including women in Armagh Gaol who were strip-searched, often with male prison guards present. Such practices were in breach of international human rights law and their use extended beyond Ireland to places such as Kenya. Amnesty International compiled a report on allegations of rape and sexual violence in that country. During the Mau Mau rebellion, 56 British soldiers were tried over allegations of gang rape and 17 were convicted.

That is why we need to ensure that any legislation to deal with the legacy of our past is compliant with international human rights law. It must be rooted in a victim-centred approach for all victims. Sinn Féin is committed to that, and we believe that any credible legacy mechanism must examine all harms, including those of a sexual nature. Only legacy structures that adhere to international human rights standards, especially those that are in compliance with the ECHR, will command confidence and, importantly, provide victims with the reassurance that their voice will be heard and their experiences acknowledged.

Mr Gaston: The motion is good in so far as it goes, but it raises a number of issues. First, just a fortnight ago, a majority of MLAs endorsed a sanction against me because I had raised the issue of paramilitary-linked sexual abuse with the First Minister. Paragraph 24 of the Commissioner for Standards' report stated:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I normally allow a degree of latitude, Mr Gaston, but I want you to return to the subject of the motion, please.

Mr Gaston: Absolutely, Mr Deputy Speaker. That is what I am getting to. I will give a sample of the questions that I asked of the First Minister. I asked her whether she wanted to take the opportunity to apologise to Máiría Cahill. That brings us directly back to the motion that we are talking about today. Here we are, discussing a motion on Troubles-related sexual crimes and child abuse that calls for action from the First Minister and deputy First Minister. I do not quibble with that, nor do I take exception to or question the right of the UUP to bring the matter before the House, given that it had the good sense to oppose the sanction that was imposed on me. However, in light of what we have heard from Alliance and the SDLP during the debate, I have to call out the hypocrisy: not so long ago, those Members were happy to ban me from the Chamber for two days on the basis of a report that said that I had disrupted —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Timothy —.

Mr Gaston: — the work —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Gaston, the debate is about a very serious issue.

Mr Gaston: It is indeed.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Gaston. Thank you. I want you to keep your remarks to the motion. There are issues that you have had — I declare an interest; I have had such issues as well — but the motion is about a very serious issue, and I want the debate to be kept on that. Over to you, Mr Gaston. You know what you need to do.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. Indeed, that is where I want to centre my remarks, but I could not let it go past that those were the questions that I was trying to raise, yet I was ruled out of order.

I want to make some comments about the substance of the motion. The most notorious case of sexual abuse linked to the IRA is that of Máiría Cahill, yet the motion excludes some of her case because it links investigations into sexual violence with the Legacy Commission. The commission has a cut-off date of 1998. Anyone who is familiar with Máiría's case will know that, while the abuse took place during the time that the commission deals with, the subsequent IRA investigation took place between 1999 and 2000. If anybody wants to know what Máiría thought of today's debate, all that you have to do is look at X. In response to Linda Dillon's comments, Máiría tweeted:

Máiría was in contact prior to the debate to say that the motion leaves a degree of ambiguity about whether victims of sexual crime linked to terror should go to the PSNI. I welcome Mr Beattie's comments, encouraging all victims to use the justice system and report abuse to the PSNI. I also want to be clear that victims should go to the PSNI, not just to the legacy body, about abuse and that the IRA's activity did not stop in 1998.

As I draw my remarks to a close, I will say that the House needs to get its own structures in order. During the debate on my sanction, I pointed out that Máiría Cahill was mentioned in the report. I have mentioned previously that neither the commissioner nor the Standards and Privileges Committee thought to mention to the victim that she would be named —

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

Mr Gaston: — in that report. We have to take on board our own advice. If we are to be victim-centred, we need to think of victims at every step in the process.

Mrs Little-Pengelly (The deputy First Minister): I welcome the opportunity to address the Chamber on a motion of profound importance. I begin by expressing my deepest sympathy to anyone who has experienced sexual abuse and crime. I have met victims of such crimes, and I am always struck by the impact of such trauma and inspired by the resilience and dignity that victims are able to manifest in the face of such evil. Victims deserve truth; they deserve justice; and they deserve to be treated with dignity, respect and compassion.

The motion recognises the devastating and enduring harm caused by crimes of a sexual nature, including child sexual abuse. I really welcome the fact that, across the House, there is so much support for the motion, which is on an issue that has been in the shadows for far too long. Specifically, the motion calls on the UK Government to ensure that the proposed Legacy Commission provides a pathway for victims of Troubles-related sexual violence to seek a legacy investigation. It also seeks to ensure that crimes of a sexual nature, including rape and child sexual abuse, are included as separate qualifying criteria.

Let me be clear that I speak on behalf of the Executive Office when I say that we fully support the motion. Whilst it focuses on the UK Government, which is where responsibility for the legislation will lie, it is important for us, as the Department with responsibility for supporting victims and survivors but also for ending violence against women and girls, to be here to respond to the motion and talk about issues that impact on people across Northern Ireland. The motion brings in a really important issue that has not been explored in the way that it needs to be explored.

I pay tribute to the brave people who have stepped forward and campaigned on the issue. I pay tribute to Máiría Cahill for all that she has done in very difficult circumstances. I see, day in and day out, the abuse that she gets on social media and other platforms because she has the audacity to speak her truth — to speak out and to ask for these issues to be addressed. I thank all campaigners who step forward on this important issue and on the more general issue of sexual violence including child sexual violence. We have heard a little about that in the debate.

Many good points have been raised. It is absolutely right that the important issue of sexual abuse is explicitly included in the legacy mechanisms. It has been kept in the shadows for far too long. Particular issues need to be examined, and I welcome the fact that a number of Members have touched on them. They include the abusive practice that created an environment in which women, children and anyone else who was abused felt that they could not go to the police or the authorities to get justice. They did not do so for fear of what members of the community — let us call them what they were: members of terrorist organisations — would do to them if they did.

Sinéad McLaughlin said, poignantly, that reporting was impossible. The reality, of course, is that reporting was made impossible not by the victims but by those around them — very often, men — who sent clear messages that, regardless of the absolutely appalling criminal abuse against them, they could not seek justice. We heard references to human rights in the debate. That is really important because fundamental human rights — the right to a fair trial, and the right to be able to take the person who committed a crime to court and get justice — were denied to generations of people who were abused, particularly women but also others including children, because of the attitudes of organisations that were then imposed on people.

Miss Hargey: Will the deputy First Minister give way?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I will indeed.

Miss Hargey: I gave the example of my father, who was sexually and physically abused by RUC Special Branch, which was supposed to investigate such crimes. How would you expect people, particularly those from nationalist/republican communities, to have confidence in RUC Special Branch when its members were also carrying out abuse?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her contribution. All sexual abuse is wrong, and I will go into a bit more detail about what the Executive and the Department are doing. Let us call out clearly, however, that any sexual abuse is absolutely wrong. It is incredibly important that we deal with the range of issues that are referred to in the motion and call out the truth. There may not be a shared view across the Office on some of those matters, but, with the greatest respect, I can be very clear that, if we look back, we can see that that was not why the PSNI, the RUC and the authorities were not welcome. There was a campaign against state authorities going into areas — there was a political campaign, and different reasons were given — and the result was that many victims were denied justice.

Worse, those who perpetrated those crimes, which included child sexual abuse, were able to repeat the offences because they were not brought to justice and incarcerated for them.

I welcome the fact that Doug Beattie, in his opening remarks, said that all victims of sexual abuse should come forward to the PSNI for full investigation. Let me be clear: all perpetrators of abuse should absolutely face justice.

Mrs Dillon: Will the Minister take an intervention?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I will, but I want to make some progress.

Mrs Dillon: Does the Minister agree that, when sexual abuse was reported to the RUC in the case of the Kincora boys' home, it was not properly investigated? How can people have faith and confidence in a service that allowed paedophiles to be embedded in a home for young boys?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: All people who were abused need that abuse to be recognised, but, frankly, I fear that we are starting to go down a line of deflection and distraction. Given what was known at the time, what has subsequently come to light and what needs to be investigated, it was absolutely right that the Executive stepped up and did the historical institutional abuse inquiry. Kincora was looked at as part of that inquiry, and I advise the Member to read the report. With the greatest respect, trying in some way to justify issues that have come to light subsequently for a lack of reporting at that time within certain communities, given the pressure that was put on women not to report to the then RUC, is revisionism. It is not acceptable, and there has been consensus across this place about that.

We need to focus on the motion, because it is on an issue of profound importance. As I said, everyone who has been a victim of sexual crime should report it. Every victim of sexual crime deserved and deserves full investigation. They deserve the perpetrator to be brought to justice. That is very much at the heart of our ending violence against women and girls strategy. It is not just about prevention but about supporting people to get justice. I welcome the fact that the Chief Constable and the PSNI are close partners with us in the Executive strategy of ending violence against women and girls. The PSNI is there because the Executive recognise and endorse the fact that the PSNI plays a critical role in supporting victims and helping them to get justice.

Sexual crime is one of the worst violations of human dignity. Serious sexual offences strike at the heart of a victim's sense of self. They cause deep trauma. People from all backgrounds and of all ages, classes and ethnicities are impacted on by sexual crime; it happens across all cultures. We want to stamp it out, and we need to support victims.

We are reminded of the impact of such issues in the work of the many strategies that we are driving forward. Supporting victims and survivors has been a central element of the Executive Office's work over many years. That support is currently provided through three key work streams: the strategy for victims and survivors, the strategy to end violence against women and girls and our work in Communities in Transition.

In the strategy for victims and survivors, Ministers have committed to building a trauma-informed, victim-centred system of support that recognises the lifelong impact of sexual violence and the trans-generational nature of trauma. The strategy emphasises the needs of victims and survivors, including those affected by sexual abuse. That must drive our policy direction. The supporting services that the strategy offers are critical in addressing that trauma. A key element of the strategy's delivery is the victim support programme. Last year, nearly £8 million of funding was provided to improve the health and well-being of victims and survivors. The issue needs to be better integrated within our comprehensive needs assessment. As more information about abuse comes out, it will be important that we make sure that the help and support are there as well.

We know that violence against women and girls cuts across all generations, all communities and all spheres in our society. It happens every day, everywhere, and impacts on how women and girls learn, live, work and socialise. The focus of the ending violence against women and girls strategic framework is on prevention, and we will continue to engage with partners on how to tackle the damaging attitudes and beliefs that can lead to that violence, abuse and harm.

The Communities in Transition programme plays an important role in strengthening community resilience and safety in areas where paramilitary influence has historically inhibited the reporting of sexual abuse and access to support. Communities in Transition addresses child sexual exploitation and child criminal exploitation through our area-based addressing exploitation projects. It is sad that such support is still needed, but we recognise that it is.

I hope that, taken together, those three strategies demonstrate a little bit of the work of the Executive Office through many strands. The legacy of sexual violence is seldom confined to the past. It continues to shape lives in the present. Recent research commissioned by the Executive Office reinforced the fact that abuse has left a devastating imprint on many people here. As I said, victims deserve truth, acknowledgement and pathways to justice.

I thank all Members for their contributions. We have heard different aspects feeding out from the motion, all of which deserve to be thoroughly examined. The motion rightly calls attention to one of the most overlooked aspects of the legacy of the Troubles. Although death and serious physical injury are well-recognised criteria in existing legacy structures, sexual offences, rape, sexual assault and child sexual abuse have historically been marginalised in the formal legacy processes. That is not because such crimes were rare but because they were hidden — hidden out of fear and shame, and hidden by coercion, community control, paramilitary dominance and a wider culture of silence. As Members know, victims of sexual violence often wait decades before being able to speak. That delay does not diminish the harm that they suffered; it makes it more imperative that the systems of today do not repeat the omissions of the past.

For all the reasons that I have outlined, it is critical that the UK Government ensure that any proposed legacy legislation does not narrow or restrict recognition of, or support or pathways for, victims. They must ensure that offences of sexual violence, including child abuse, are not excluded from, nor their importance downgraded in, proposed legacy architecture. They must ensure that nothing is included in the proposals that could deny victims meaningful access to justice. Victims must not be ignored, and they must never be forgotten.

The Executive Office recognises the gravity of sexual offences, particularly where they were committed in conflict-affected and coercive environments; the right of all victims to have their case considered in any legacy investigative system; and the need for the Troubles Bill to reflect the full spectrum of harms experienced during the conflict, not only those that resulted in death or visible physical injury. When the Troubles Bill was announced, the Secretary of State indicated that he hoped that the communities that were most affected by the conflict of the Troubles would see the Bill as a way forward in which they could have confidence. For communities to have confidence, they need reassurance — reassurance that they can seek justice for crimes of that nature by way of the proposed Legacy Commission; reassurance that they have not been ignored, dismissed or excluded, as so many have been in the past; and reassurance that we in the Assembly will support them on their journey. We have provided that support through funding for strategies and programmes, but we must also call those things out and show absolute and universal support for truth. It is entirely appropriate that the Assembly call on the UK Government to ensure that.

I acknowledge the courage of all the victims and survivors who have carried their experiences over the decades, often in silence. Their persistence is the reason that we are debating the issue today. We owe them a debt of gratitude for the resilience that they have shown.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed, deputy First Minister. I call Diana Armstrong to make a winding-up speech. Diana, you have up to 10 minutes.

Ms D Armstrong: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I commend my colleague Doug Beattie for bringing the motion to the Chamber. I will echo many of the sentiments that have been expressed by Members from across the Assembly. It has been a hard listen at times. We acknowledge the pain and suffering that has gone unrecorded, and which really needs to be addressed through what the motion seeks to do. There are some issues that should not divide us along party lines, and this must be one of them. Even those who believe that there was no alternative to violence — I firmly maintain that there was and always will be — must surely accept that crimes of a sexual nature are profoundly insidious and utterly evil: there can be equivocation on that point. Sexual violence is not an unfortunate by-product of conflict: it is a deliberate act that destroys dignity, strips away innocence and leaves scars that last a lifetime.

Around the world, we have seen how sexual abuse is used as a weapon of terror, deployed to instil fear, exert coercive control and shatter communities from within. Northern Ireland was not immune from that horror, yet too often those who suffered such crimes during the Troubles have been overlooked, marginalised or simply left out of the conversation. The lasting psychological impact of sexual abuse does not end with the individual: it radiates outwards, affecting families, relationships and entire support networks. A part of a person is irreparably damaged, physically and psychologically, and the trauma experienced can endure for decades. That is why the criteria for inclusion in the Legacy Commission cannot simply be lifted from another category, with a few words altered. These crimes require explicit and separate recognition. To subsume them under broader headings would once again render these victims invisible.

The motion is not about scoring points at all. It is about principle, ensuring that those who suffered sexual abuse and child abuse during the Troubles are no longer overlooked, forgotten or treated as an afterthought in our legacy processes. If we truly wish to build a society based on justice and respect, we must start by recognising every victim, and ensuring that the victims of Troubles-related sexual violence are also entitled to a legacy investigation process and that these crimes are included in the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill.

I turn to some Members' —.

Mr Beattie: Will the Member give way?

Ms D Armstrong: Yes.

Mr Beattie: I ask my colleague to acknowledge that I made a slight mistake in my contribution, which is that Máiría Cahill did not go to the IRA for an investigation: the IRA forced her to have an investigation. I just want to put that on the record.

Ms D Armstrong: I am sure that that is noted. Thank you for that intervention.

I turn to some of the contributions made in the Chamber. I welcome the support that has been given to the motion. In no particular order, I start with Sinéad McLaughlin. She gave us a very powerful representation of the need for the full story and the profound harm that women suffered in being subjected to violence and how that has remained in many cases unresolved and, as many Members echoed across the Chamber, there was a fear of going to the PSNI, or the RUC at that time. They felt that they would be excluded within their community if they spoke out, and there was a fear of what would happen to them for doing so. She said that victims deserve the full unvarnished truth.

Deirdre Hargey spoke about how her father's experience affected their family and affected him. She said that any legacy legislation should be centred around international human rights in order to command confidence.

Turning to —. I have actually lost my notes, because I was writing so much down to try to cover this.

Timothy Gaston raised some issues, but we were speaking in the here and now about this debate today. I know that you accept the impact of violence against women and girls and of a sexual nature as well against children. You welcomed Doug Beattie's encouraging all victims to go to the PSNI.

From the deputy First Minister, we heard about the work that the Executive Office is doing, and we heard that every victim deserves full justification and that their stories have to be heard. You made the very important point that those who perpetrated the crimes often went unreported and went on to be perpetrators in further instances. That is something that is very hard for people to see in the community: the same perpetrator was at large and able to continue those despicable acts.

I thank everybody for their comments today, and I support the motion brought by the UUP. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for the debate, which has been held in a sensitive manner. I appreciate the personal issues and the sensitivities that many of these things touch on. It is probably one of the problems of our past that we have to address, and it is important that it is addressed. That was not a political speech, just an observation that I make from the Chair.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Members should take their ease.

Mr Speaker: In conjunction with the Business Committee, the Speaker has given Dr Steve Aiken leave to raise the matter of flooding along the Six Mile river.

I call Dr Aiken. You will have up to 15 minutes.

Dr Aiken: Thank you very much, indeed, Mr Speaker, and thank you for chairing the Adjournment debate on flooding along the Six Mile river.

I start by thanking the many constituents who have been in touch with me on the issue. In particular, I thank the Antrim and District Angling Association; the unfortunate residents whom we have helped whose homes have been inundated with floodwaters or, even more regrettably, with sewage and other grey water effluent; our great local councillors; our mayor, Leah Kirkpatrick; Councillors Vera McWilliam and Stewart Wilson; Robin Swann MP and his and our office teams; our numerous council workers; the PSNI; the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service; and the numerous members of the public who stepped up to deal with the recent floods. I also thank the officials from DAERA, DFI Rivers, Northern Ireland Water (NIW) and our local council who have been speaking with me not just about the recent flooding but about their real concerns raised over the past many years. In addition to council officials and the other public servants who have come to our office, I have been contacted by some officials anonymously. That is because they have come to the conclusion that, regrettably, they are not being listened to.

Minister, the sad issue is that the flooding along the Six Mile, its tributaries, its streams and its associated fluvial zones was entirely predictable, and the warning signs have been around for well over a decade or more. As, I am sure, the Minister has been briefed by officials, the Six Mile covers the majority of the South Antrim constituency. It is the riparian heart of Antrim and Newtownabbey. It is the home to species of brown trout, including the rare Dollaghan. It is a salmon spawning ground and is a home to otters, kingfishers, herons, swans, ducks and many aquatic species. It has also been subject to several severe pollution incidents, with fish kills caused by run-offs from waste water treatment plants, slurry inundations and the release of chemicals.

The Six Mile is a fragile ecosystem, one that is now under severe and increasing pressure from two significant factors: the first is the climate emergency, and the second is the sclerotic and deadening hand of bureaucracy and regulation. Storm Chandra has been just one of the ever-increasing severe weather events that are deluging Northern Ireland. So-called 100-year weather events now occur with much greater frequency than once a century. It seems and analyses begin to show that storms bring much more concentrated amounts of rainfall. We seem to have 100-year events happening monthly or even bimonthly at the moment. That often overwhelms river banks that have been denuded of vegetation, storm drains that have not been maintained for years and water and sewerage infrastructure that has not been invested in. It runs straight off tarmac, over gardens and along badly drained car parks, trying to find natural watercourses that have been blocked by developments. It is no longer attenuated by dams placed over a century and a half ago and reduced in size because of reservoirs legislation that was, until recently, neglected in departmental reshuffles and runs off super-saturated land. One thing that spending three decades in the Royal Navy taught me was that the water always wins, unless it is carefully managed.

In my constituency, residents of Riverside, Dunadry, Ballyclare, Ballynure and along the length of the Six Mile river have seen their properties damaged, roads cut off and blockages along the river and its tributaries adding to surface flooding on the roads. The effects have been wider, however. With the saturation of the water table, the land cannot absorb any more water, so it continues to run off into the tributaries across most of South Antrim. When the water meets the main river at its highest level, the standing water forces it to back up, meaning that even some homes on higher ground that have never been subject to flooding find that the surface run-off has nowhere to go. With much of our drainage being impeded, blocked or consisting of pipes that are unable to deal with the quantities of water — for instance, on the Ballycorr Road in Ballyclare — water overspills into common storm drains, forcing sewage into the streets or, worse, back up out of toilets and drains in people's homes. That has turned the aforementioned Ballycorr Road's potholes, pot craters and pot canyons into a reasonable scale model of the Grand Canyon with added sludge.

Some civil servants love "metsplaining" to me — I declare an interest, because, in a previous job, I helped fund the climate change research centre at the Hadley Centre for Climate Science and Services for several years — that such water inundations are unpredictable. They are unpredictable only if you do not bother looking at the latest predictions. I recently took the opportunity to examine the data and modelling being used by the many Departments that should have responsibility for flood management. I have recently tabled questions for written answer on whether the extent of the recent flooding has been mapped against existing flood maps and flood map projections. Members may not be aware that the provision of detailed mapping is the responsibility of the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland (OSNI). He has to work with the Minister for Infrastructure to keep the mapping updated, as it is also the responsibility of DFI Rivers. Objectives include reducing the number of properties at risk of inundation. The Minister for Infrastructure is also responsible for Northern Ireland Water. Given the real challenges as a result of flooding in the greater Belfast area, Northern Ireland Water produced its Living with Water plan, which could form the basis of a model for other catchment areas, although it has been shelved indefinitely by the Minister. The AERA Minister cannot be left out, as he has responsibility for monitoring emergency water pollution and dealing with it.

Local area planning is the responsibility of Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council and is based on the information provided by the statutory agencies. The council seeks to balance the needs of development against the constraints of the environment. Local planners, however, can act only within the guidance that they are given. The most recent strategic planning policy statement (SPPS), which is edition 2 from 2025, clearly states:

should be avoided.

The flooding guidance that it refers to is Planning Policy Statement 15 (PPS 15), which is the revised statement on planning and flood risk and is dated September 2014. As far as I can see, unless I am corrected, it uses data from Met Office projections for 2004. I can find no modelling or mapping data that is recent, by which I mean from within the past five years. I do hope that my analysis is wrong, but to base local development plans on data that is almost a quarter of a century old at a time of rapidly changing climate conditions seems to be suboptimal at least.

I could go on about annual exceedance probability (AEP), which is the annual probability of a flood exceeding the peak floodwater level. It is a method that is utilised in other jurisdictions but, again, relies on having up-to-date mapping data and on when the most recent update using the precautionary approach to susceptibility to floods was done. I suspect that the answer would be similar, however. If data from 2004, which, as I said, has not been updated since then, was used, it is little surprise that the planning guidance did not provide for adequacy.

While officials in the Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS) will be using and analysing data from who knows when, the insurance industry definitely will not be. It is making near-real-time actuarial predictions on flood damage and claims, which will be much to the detriment of my constituents, who bought their homes in good faith, based on planning policy that is way out of date.

Minister, the Six Mile river also offers an opportunity for environmental and flood management. As local organisations such as the angling association have said, use the river to help us. We should replant suitable vegetation along its banks and create natural sustainable drainage systems (SuDS). After all, the bog meadows in Ballyclare were called that for a reason: the area used to absorb the flooding. We should create biodiversity buffers. We should take the Six Mile river and turn its natural amenities into something that all can enjoy and make much of the river a contiguous park across our council areas.

The floods are also a wake-up call to you and other Ministers to stop ignoring the responsibility to ensure that you have updated policies and, above all, modelling of what is happening and what is likely to happen. The so-called 100-year events will not be 100 years apart, as some think; they will not even be annual events. As we have seen from the rainfall that we are having, we are looking at extreme weather events happening four, five or maybe six times a year. We will be affected not just in the winter but in all seasons, including the summer.

The flooding events are not unpredictable. My constituents and other people across Northern Ireland cannot be refused the best guidance and planning policy because officialdom has not updated its basic information or policy for a quarter of a century. Minister, that is not an act of unpredictable, extreme weather; it is a failure of policy.

Mr Speaker: You have up to five minutes, Mr Kearney.

Mr Kearney: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas le mo chomhghleacaí as an díospóireacht seo a thabhairt chun an Tí inniu.

I begin by acknowledging the hurt caused to the residents of Riverside, Massereene Street and Meadowside in particular and the resilience of those communities. They are little neighbourhoods that border the Sixmilewater. We are looking at them today against the backdrop of the recent devastating flood and the damage that it caused to their properties and neighbourhoods, which are historic neighbourhoods of Antrim town.

Regrettably, there is a long history of flooding in those areas. The most recent incident, which was caused by storm Chandra, is the worst flood to have impacted on local residents' homes since the extreme weather event of August 2008. On 28 January, the day after storm Chandra, I joined my party colleague and Minister for Infrastructure, Liz Kimmins, on a visit to Riverside to meet residents who were directly impacted. That was an opportunity for the Minister to hear from local people about the pattern of flooding that that community had endured for many years and about their real fears around the prospect of future heavy rain and the potential for river levels to rise again.

At that time and since then, through formal correspondence, I have urged the Minister to expedite completion of the flood risk feasibility study, which is scheduled to be concluded in the summer. It is imperative that that report delivers concrete recommendations with the capacity to guarantee the safety of local people and their homes. I have explained to the Minister and her officials that there must be a strategic focus on the contributory factors to the swell of the Sixmilewater during exceptional rainfall. Those factors include upstream developments and associated planning decisions; a failure to comply with planning decisions; and the ineffectiveness of the existing drainage infrastructure, particularly in the vicinity of Riverside and Massereene Street.

I note the Minister's response to my assertion that there was a complete collapse in the departmental response on the day. I also note that the review that I requested of the failure of the critical response measures that day has been carried out. Immediate action is required to allay residents' genuine fears. I am therefore relieved that operational and communication protocols at Riverside have been reviewed and updated with immediate effect to ensure the strengthening of future operational readiness.

The Minister has stated that she welcomes the constructive and robust nature of the meeting hosted by the Riverside and Massereene Street (RAMS) residents' group on 4 February and, as a result, will proceed with a meeting of the regional community resilience group (RCRG) in the coming weeks. I welcome the fact that, in response to my ongoing representations to the Minister, she has agreed to authorise senior officials to meet RAMS in advance to brief on decisions and actions already agreed and to use that engagement to inform the approach of the next meeting of the RCRG. I welcome the fact that the Minister will invite elected representatives from the area to attend that meeting.

Mr McGrath: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kearney: Yes.

Mr McGrath: The Member will appreciate that we had similar issues in South Down. The Department would like to see the development of better weather predictions, and it would be great to see finance for that. There might be cases in which we get a weather warning that encompasses the whole of the North but the rain falls only in specific places.

There is the potential for better weather predictions to pinpoint where that will happen and then target resources to that area. I know that it will cost money and that money is scarce, but that would be helpful to residents in your constituency as well.

Mr Kearney: Thank you for that intervention. I agree that we require a holistic and strategic focus, and that that type of approach would be very helpful to everybody in the region.

The kind of approach that is being set out is necessary to provide reassurance to local people that they have not been abandoned until the onset of the next flooding incident. They and we — their representatives — need to know that the appropriate agencies have the resources and plans in place to meet their responsibilities and to intervene effectively in case of future increased river levels. The flooding associated with the Sixmilewater has become an issue of public confidence, and there must be a step change on an inter-agency basis. That must include an NIW review of drainage infrastructure, and I am seeking appropriate action in that regard. My and residents' concerns about the standard of existing infrastructure are well known to NIW, because we presented them directly to the agency in December 2024.

I urge the Minister to support my call for the review to be undertaken as a matter of priority so that, when defects and weaknesses are identified, the remedial works can be programmed without delay.

Mr Clarke: I thank my colleague from South Antrim for securing this debate. I concur with lots of the remarks that have been made about the issues that we witnessed that day, albeit, when I came into the Chamber, I thought that there was a party political broadcast for the Ulster Unionist Party and had to ask my colleague what was going on. I thought that we were here to talk about the Six Mile river.

The events of that day and the effects of the flooding have, rightly, been highlighted by my colleague opposite. Hearing about those effects comes as no surprise to any of us who attended the meeting that was organised — it has, rightly, been identified — by the RAMS residents' group. Like my colleague opposite, I commend the organisers of that event. It was a very useful and cordial event, and I put on record my thanks to all the officials from all the different agencies who were there. They broke into various groups to try to understand what happened. It was clear that evening — it has been recognised this afternoon — that there was a breakdown in the protocols that had been set in place since the previous floods.

Indeed, I, as a representative for the area, was in the unfortunate position of being involved in the flooding in 2008; I had an office at the end of Massereene Street. I saw the effects of the flooding on people then, and I have seen the effects ever since. As was said during a previous debate, those people are living on rain watch or river watch. On every occasion when there is rain, they are out checking the height of the rivers. Indeed, at that event a couple weeks ago following the most recent flooding events, a lady was fit to tell us how many metres the river was at at certain times of the day. It is concerning that that is how those people live their lives. I acknowledge that the Minister was there, albeit belatedly.

There has been reference to other developments, and the previous contributor talked about failure to comply with planning conditions. Minister, you were in the constituency a number of months ago looking at a retrospective sustainable drainage system (SuDS). That SuDS was not put in place when the development was occupied initially. People were moved into those houses, and it was only after some time that there was a recognition that the developer had failed to do what he should have done, subject to planning. The SuDS was then put in retrospectively. People in Antrim were very disappointed that you visited on that occasion to see a retrospective system, given the impact that there has been on their houses, but I am sure that they were pleased to see you when you came the day after the floods. That is not whataboutery: we have to say these things. What are we going to do? What will be the long-term effect on those people?

On that morning, I went to Ballyclare to lift my party colleague. I thought that talk of how bad the weather was was an exaggeration. I drove on the Templepatrick Road, which was almost impassable because of the volume of water on it. The fields the whole way from Templepatrick to Ballyclare were like a sea. I had never seen that before. I turned on to Jubilee Road, and, where new houses are approved to be built within a few months, it was completely flooded — it was part of the river. That is concerning for me, and I am sure that it will be concerning for those who want to invest in those properties. As sure as day follows night, when those houses are built, there will be a further impact.

As has rightly been identified, the residents of Riverside, Meadowside and Massereene Street, who were most affected by the recent flooding, are concerned every time they hear about a development being built close to the Sixmilewater.

I would go further and say that anywhere in the catchment area could be affected. I am known to be pro-development. I will always be pro-development because people need homes to live in. We need to build homes, but we also need to provide the infrastructure in such a way —

Dr Aiken: Will the Member give way?

Mr Clarke: I will.

Dr Aiken: It was noteworthy that, in Ballynure, of all places, one of the problems was that, due to the height of the river, water could not drain away, and there was flooding around the school and that area. That has not been seen before, but it was actually predicted.

Mr Clarke: Likewise, one of the early results at Riverside was that drains could not empty out into the river and they filled up. That has already been recognised. There was a protocol in place, and it failed. I am sure that anybody who watched television will have seen the residents talking about making calls from 9.00 am. The pumps did not arrive until the afternoon.

Look, that has all been taken on board. It was good to see that the agencies got together after the meeting to try to get a plan in place. It is welcome to hear that in the debate, even before the Minister speaks. Certainly, as her party colleague said it, I can take it that it is an agreed line from the Minister that that is now in place. Moreover, there needs to be something wider, such as a moratorium on planning, until we get a resolution. Reference has been made to the old houses and old parts of Antrim. They are old, but they were new at one time. They are family homes and mean a lot to the individuals who own them. Every time that there is new development further upstream, there is real concern about the impact that it will have. We need to find a resolution. However, at the same time, we cannot end the development of new homes for young families.

Mr Blair: I am pleased that this important issue has been brought before the Assembly. I thank my South Antrim colleague Steve Aiken for securing the debate. The discussion is particularly timely, given the recent and, sadly, in many areas, ongoing flooding that is being experienced across my South Antrim constituency. I pay tribute to residents for their organised reaction during the floods recently and their proactive approach in organising meetings after the events. I also thank the Infrastructure Minister for taking the time to visit South Antrim, just a couple of weeks ago, to witness first-hand the devastation that has been caused by the flooding; and for being in the Chamber to respond to the debate.

As climate change accelerates, heavier and more-frequent rainfall is becoming a regular feature of our weather and a reality. We have endured an exceptionally wet winter. What were once-in-a-decade events now occur regularly. The recent devastation is yet another stark reminder of the long-overdue need for a comprehensive flood alleviation scheme along the Sixmilewater and other locations in South Antrim. It is deeply frustrating to be contacted repeatedly by distressed constituents while I, and others, including Members who are here, have consistently pressed the Infrastructure Minister and her predecessors for mitigation measures. Ministers have indicated that there may be progress on an alleviation scheme by summer 2026. That work must proceed without delay. I will continue to press for it inside and outside the Chamber.

My frustration is nothing compared with that of the people who live with daily flood risk and fear for their safety, families, homes and businesses every time heavy rain is forecast. I saw that fear again at the end of January and start of February, particularly in Ballyclare, Dunadry, Glenavy and other communities across South Antrim, especially —

Dr Aiken: Will the Member give way?

Mr Blair: Yes.

Dr Aiken: The most interesting thing, perhaps, from the Minister's perspective, is that while, previously, areas that were thought to be flood-prone might, at least, have included those beside culverts, ditches and small streams, they are now much wider. Estates are even being flooded in Ballyclare that are nowhere near rivers and are on higher ground.

Mr Blair: I thank the Member for the intervention. That is why the flood alleviation plans must examine and assess the entire Sixmilewater catchment area and development areas around it.

As I was saying, fear and flooding have been a reality in Ballyclare, Dunadry, Glenavy and other communities across South Antrim, especially those residential streets in Antrim town, on so many occasions. The negative impact of continued development and associated run-off along the banks of the Sixmilewater can no longer be questioned. That reality must form part of future planning and infrastructure strategy.

Flooding along the Sixmilewater is not only a threat to homes, roads and businesses but an environmental crisis. When the river bursts its banks, it carries sediment, agricultural run-off, nutrients and pollutants into the wider catchment, which, of course, includes Lough Neagh. Flood events damage water quality, undermine biodiversity and further strain already fragile ecosystems. We have all seen the images of blue-green algal blooms and the severe pressures on Lough Neagh, and we need not willingly contribute further to that situation.

It is vital that the Infrastructure Minister rapidly bring forward robust flood alleviation plans for areas historically affected by flooding so that we will not be back here next autumn and winter, making the same requests. Those residents who have faced repeated flooding can be assured that I will continue to raise the matter with the Minister and seek the detailed updates that she has promised on the flood alleviation scheme for the area. My constituents cannot wait for the next storm to find out whether lessons have been learned. I have raised the issue before, I raise it this afternoon, and I will continue to do so until the people of South Antrim see the meaningful, climate-proofed action that they deserve.

Mrs Cameron: I welcome the Adjournment debate, which is really important, and I thank my colleague Steve Aiken for securing it. I also put on record my thanks to the Minister for being here to hear the debate this afternoon.

Flooding along the Six Mile river is not a new issue; it has been happening for years, as we all know, affecting the same communities, homes and roads time and time again. It is not about freak weather events but about repeated, predictable flooding, and residents are rightly asking why nothing has changed. Previous Ministers, including Sinn Féin Ministers, have visited those communities and seen the damage first-hand, yet, years on, people are still asking the same questions: where is the plan, what has been done, and when will it be fixed? That is not a criticism of front-line staff at the Department for Infrastructure. They work hard, and Members regularly engage constructively with them. The issue is about leadership, direction and delivery at a strategic level. What communities see is a system that reacts after flooding happens, rather than preventing it. Visits take place, and reviews are carried out, but the flooding continues.

Planning decisions are part of the problem, as we know. We continue to see pressures from developments without proper alignment with drainage capacity, flood risk management or road infrastructure, which leaves communities downstream to deal with the consequences. Planning alone, however, is not an excuse. The real issue is the absence of a clear, coordinated, catchment-wide flood prevention approach for the Six Mile river.

My constituents are crying out for a solution. Their homes have been flooded, and their possessions have been destroyed. They live with constant anxiety every time that heavy rain is forecast. That is unacceptable. Therefore, I ask the Minister to outline the immediate steps that will be taken to deliver a coordinated flood prevention approach for communities along the Six Mile river. When can residents expect to see real progress on the ground? I appreciate that John Blair and I asked questions to the Minister for Infrastructure at a recent Question Time about that, and that she has agreed, thankfully, to meet a delegation of some of the affected residents.

Residents clearly want solutions. Day in, day out, they are living on rain watch and weather watch, as my colleague said. It is a horrendous place to be. I have family members who were in the Riverside area in 2008, and they are there today. We know very well the day-to-day impact that flooding can have on lives. We have all seen that, but we really need to see good cooperation across Departments and action being taken to assure the residents who are affected that we can come up with solutions and help them with the daily battle with rain and water.

I thank the Minister for her attention to the debate, and I hope and trust that she will provide us with some comfort about how we can deal with the matter.

Mr Speaker: I call the Minister, Liz Kimmins. Minister, you have up to 10 minutes.

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

I thank Steve Aiken for securing the Adjournment debate. I acknowledge the distress that has been experienced by residents, businesses and the wider community who have been impacted by flooding at the Sixmilewater river. No one in my Department, including me, wants to see that level of destruction and what is, to an extent, harm being caused across the region.

As Members mentioned, I visited the Riverside area, and I did that because I genuinely care. Flooding has impacted on people in my constituency, so I know the far-reaching effects that it has on people's physical and mental health. People talked about being on rain watch, and I am always conscious, for anyone who has been affected by flooding at any stage, that it never leaves them. They will constantly worry every time they see heavy rainfall. As Members have rightly pointed out, such rainfall is becoming more frequent. Therefore, it is becoming many people's everyday concern, and it is something that they constantly have to deal with.

The reality is that approximately 45,000 properties here, which is about 5% of all properties across the North, are currently identified as being at flood risk from rivers, the sea or surface water. Climate change is having an impact, and, taking that into consideration, the number of properties that will be at risk will increase by approximately 14,800.

Dr Aiken: I thank the Minister for giving way. The issue about mapping is fundamental. I have written to you and to the Finance Minister about updating the mapping. Has the recent flood inundation been looked at against the flood maps? My understanding is that they do not match in any way, because of the recent volume of rainfall. That brings me to the question about when the data was taken. Will the Minister please investigate when we were able to update the modelling and the flood mapping? I understand that the insurance industry has updated mapping, but our concern is that it is not available to planners or residents.

Ms Kimmins: I will cover some of that later. I do not want to go off too far now in case I lose my train of thought.

We are dealing with warmer air, climate change and increased rainfall intensity, so those factors all have to be taken into consideration. The Department and, particularly, DFI Rivers have been working on that for some time, particularly after the impact of the significant flooding in 2023. It remains a challenge without continued, adequate investment in our infrastructure. Many services that we provide continue to be under strain. The work that we need to do, particularly around flood alleviation, is challenging. We know all the key areas that need investment at this point in time, and we have to make decisions around prioritisation. That is something that we have to do across the Department.

As Members have mentioned, storm Chandra last month followed the third wettest autumn on record and the second wettest January, with 100·8 millimetres of rainfall recorded in a single day in Katesbridge, which is well beyond previous site records. The prolonged spells of heavy rain resulted in the significant flooding that we saw, mainly across the south and east. As Members will know, my Department is the lead Department for the strategic coordination of the emergency response to storm impacts on the road network and to significant flooding. Following the Met Office's weather warnings, we aimed to move quickly and work closely with partner organisations to mitigate the impacts as far as possible.

In anticipation of storm Chandra, officials met multi-agency partners, including councils, through the established channels for considering the preparation for and management of such an incident. That led to the establishment of a PSNI-led multi-agency tactical coordination group, which met before storm Chandra began and ensured coordinated 24/7 engagement with emergency partners throughout the event. My Department's major emergency response plan was then activated, and the departmental emergency management group was put in place to consider the impacts of the storm from a departmental perspective. Our operational teams responded to over 1,000 incidents, including more than 600 flooding reports and 370 obstructions on the road network. As part of that work, staff worked continuously to clear drainage infrastructure, remove fallen trees and debris, undertake pumping operations, deploy sandbags, install flood barriers and grit the network to maintain public safety during the ice weather warning.

Mr Clarke: I appreciate the Minister's giving way on that point. I am not trying to make a point — well, I am trying to make a point. I hear what you are saying about all the things that were being done, and we appreciate that the staff were all busy. However, there was a protocol in place, and there were to be pumps in place. For your own benefit, I will tell you that, on the night of the meeting, officials said that the pump was somewhere on the east coast. That is no comfort to residents in Antrim. We want to hear from you that those things have been resolved. We appreciate that the officials were all very busy, but if there is supposed to be a dedicated pump in Antrim, we need a dedicated pump in Antrim.

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for that point. I am setting the scene for what happened across the board that evening. I absolutely understand that that does not give people comfort, especially if water is coming in. I met Jim and David. I was in their home and heard first-hand about their experience, which was absolutely horrendous. The stress of hoping that someone will come or offer some sort of support and not seeing that is unimaginable. As I will maybe explain later in my response, the meeting that night reflected the fact that we recognised where things did not turn out as they should have. However, we looked at that in the immediate aftermath and said, "How do we tighten it up?". I have responded to Members about how quickly we acted and how we can, hopefully, offer reassurance. It is an interim measure, and I am very conscious of that. It is not a long-term solution to any of the issues that we are here to discuss. I know that one of the guys is a Marie Curie nurse and had to leave work. That broader impact is so important in the midst of discussing something that, you think, we should be able to address there and then.

On the prevention piece — this speaks to Dr Aiken's points — planning and flood risk policy here follows a very precautionary approach, with development in flood-prone areas avoided where possible. The issue of planning and development was raised with us by residents on the ground. Members will be aware that DFI Rivers is a statutory consultee in the planning process that is carried out by councils. We very much take it into consideration. I cannot speak to specific applications that were made in the past, but I recognise the concerns that have been raised by Members here and residents on the ground, and we will take those away. I am not sure whether concerns were raised at the time and applications went through or whether we felt, at that point in time, that the properties were not in a flood-prone area as such or that they would not have the impact that, people believe, they have had. I assure Members that the issue is being taken very seriously, given our experience across the board. As we see more such events, it becomes a more challenging issue. In the debate, someone mentioned the fact that more areas that never flooded previously are at high risk of flooding. That will very much change how we respond to a lot of applications going forward and will affect how seriously we take the issue. We cannot encourage someone to build a house in an area that we know will flood. All that has to be taken into consideration.

Members will know that, as part of the process, applicants must submit a flood-risk assessment and/or a drainage assessment, demonstrating that appropriate measures will effectively mitigate any flood risk to the proposed development and will not increase flood risk elsewhere. That is part of the process.

On protection, the development of flood alleviation schemes and the maintenance of drainage infrastructure are at the core of our activities. Presently, my Department has over 50 projects in its capital works programme, over half of which have been driven by proactive work in implementing the floods directive. As I mentioned, delivery of the schemes is complex and involves a number of key stages, including feasibility, design, procurement and construction. As Members mentioned, the scheme for Riverside in the Sixmilewater area is going through the feasibility stage, and we hope to see that concluding soon.

In line with that, my Department remains committed to strengthening future preparedness. I think that that is what we all want to see and what we are all speaking to. Colin McGrath, who is not here now, mentioned the need for proper weather forecasting and how we can be more prepared. That is why I allocated money this year to the development of a flood forecasting centre. That, in itself, will enable us to get better data so that we can be better prepared. We cannot always predict the impact of the weather, but the more information that we have, the better that we can implement our preparedness. There is the work through the multi-agency partnerships and the training of staff through the civil contingencies learning and development strategy. On the community resilience piece, we mentioned the critical RCRG work in that area. I have seen that in other areas and how well it can work.

I am conscious of time, Mr Speaker, so I hope that you will allow me a wee bit of flexibility so that I can get to the end of my remarks.

As I said, it is currently anticipated that the feasibility study should be complete by the summer, after which any opportunities to accelerate work on it will be taken. I assure Members that if we are able to expedite the feasibility study, we will do so, as we recognise just how important it has been. Since storm Chandra, we have, as I said, reviewed isolated problem areas and taken immediate action to enhance operational resilience. Further follow-up work continues to be done, including undertaking detailed investigations, capturing lessons learned and facilitating urgent meetings or discussions with a number of those who were affected by the storm. That engagement will continue through the work of the RCRG's local volunteer groups, of which there are now 50 across the North. Those groups add another layer to the building of resilience and preparedness in communities right across the North, so we are not stepping away from our responsibilities.

My DFI Rivers operational team will continue its inspection and maintenance regime for designated watercourses, including the Sixmilewater, and their associated infrastructure in the Antrim area. If an inspection determines that there is a blockage that significantly impedes the free flow of water in the watercourse or the drainage infrastructure, works will be programmed accordingly. As we have discussed, in all those cases, without taking away from what happens in one area, resources are heavily stretched when significant flooding happens across the North. We are trying to prioritise where we can get to and where we can have the best impact, but lessons have certainly been learnt from that specific incident. We want to make sure that we do more to build community confidence and also to get ahead of any future events in preparation for longer-term measures that are in train.

In closing, I thank all Members for their contributions this evening. I appreciate having the opportunity to outline where the Department is at and also to emphasise and reinforce how important the issue is to me as the Minister and to the Department as we try to find solutions and protect people. I look forward to having continued engagement with Members and the community.