Official Report: Tuesday 03 March 2026

Ms Finnegan: Two weekends ago, I attended a community and family day at Camlough lake that was hosted by Lislea Men's Shed. We often speak about men's sheds supporting mental health, connection and companionship, and that work is invaluable. However, I witnessed something more: I saw men stepping forward as guardians of their community. Lislea Men's Shed does not simply provide activities; it protects an ecological asset for future generations. The men use their skills, time and commitment to safeguard wildlife, habitats and natural heritage in their area through their wildfowl and wetlands project at part of the lake that is known locally as "the commons". They, alongside my party colleague Councillor Oonagh Magennis, have worked on that since 2019.

Groups such as Lislea Men's Shed are not waiting to be told what to do; they recognise what they have, and they are determined not to lose it. They understand that biodiversity is not an abstract concept; it is the birds that their grandchildren watch, it is the landscape that shapes local identity, and it is the ecosystems that sustain life. If we are serious about protecting our environment, we must recognise that truth. Real environmental leadership is happening in our communities every day. Men's sheds are not just about well-being; they are about responsibility, stewardship and legacy. What Lislea Men's Shed is doing at Camlough lake is an example of community at its best.

Mr Buckley: Over the years, this place has seen some very silly actions, some very callous actions and some selfish actions. However, the fact that, as we have heard in the last two days, the First Minister, Michelle O'Neill, has on not one but two occasions refused to attend Cabinet Office briefings on the situation in the Middle East is reckless and dangerous in the extreme.

Regardless of Members' political views on the situation in Iran, it is incumbent on all Ministers to act in a way that is responsible and that shows leadership. The First Minister has not done so. She has walked away while hundreds of Northern Ireland citizens — those with a British passport and, indeed, those with an Irish passport — are stranded across the Middle East, anxious to get home to their families. Meanwhile, for the sake of political point-scoring and because of a selfish, narrow, ideological viewpoint, the First Minister, Sinn Féin's Michelle O'Neill, is again missing from action.

When Ministers take their place in the House, they sign the Pledge of Office. One of the pillars of the Pledge of Office is:

The ministerial code talks about the seven principles of public life, which include showing selflessness by acting in the public interest, showing objectivity by basing decisions on merit and evidence and showing leadership. It is a ministerial code that does not apply to the Sinn Féin First Minister, however. It is beyond ridiculous. Sinn Féin's Michelle O'Neill often claims to be the "First Minister for all". On this occasion, she appears to be the First Minister for nobody.

Mr Dickson: As chair of the all-party group (APG) on cancer, I will talk about lung cancer. Over the past 20 years, the number of lung cancer diagnoses in rural and coastal areas has effectively doubled, largely driven by an ageing population. That is putting great pressure on services. Across Northern Ireland, some 1,300 people are diagnosed with lung cancer every year, and around 44% of cases are picked up at the most advanced stage, when the chances of curative treatment are very small.

Behind those statistics are families living in rural and coastal areas. They are waiting for appointments and scans and travelling long distances for them, and they often feel that the system is one step behind the disease. It is clear that where people live, and their circumstances, makes a huge difference. People who live in the most deprived areas are about twice as likely as people in other areas to develop lung cancer. The steepest rises in cases in Northern Ireland are in the Northern Health and Social Care Trust and the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust, where the populations are older and more spread out, yet five times more care-of-the-elderly doctors, physicians and other specialists are concentrated in Belfast than in those trust areas. That imbalance simply does not reflect where ageing people, and the people who are becoming unwell, live.

Too few patients are referred urgently for the beginning of their treatment within the 62-day target. For lung cancer, those weeks are critical. If people live in a rural or coastal area, that can mean longer journeys, more waiting and, all too often, worse outcomes.

The Chief Medical Officer (CMO) for England has recently argued that health resources need to be shifted towards our rural and coastal areas to reflect changing demographics, as there are older populations and higher illness burdens there. That argument applies equally here. If the fastest growth is needed in our coastal areas and rural communities, including mine in East Antrim, strategic healthcare planning must catch up with that reality.

There is also a clear warning for the future. Although smoking remains the main cause of lung cancer, doctors and researchers are increasingly worried about the way in which highly addictive vapes are being targeted at young people. We are all aware of stories of schools in which pupils struggle to get through a lesson without vaping. We would be very foolish to assume that there will be no consequences from drawing often unregulated substances into our lungs.

Finally, I pay tribute to the clinicians, patients and charities doing their best in a very stretched system. As a cancer survivor, I am acutely aware of the difference that dedicated staff and timely care can make, but we cannot ask people to bridge structural gaps through goodwill alone. Our constituents deserve a service that matches where they live and how they age and that gives them a fair chance when they are faced with a lung cancer diagnosis.

Dr Aiken: Anyone who has witnessed the vile antisemitic slurs that have emanated from the Republic of Ireland recently, highlighted by two Jewish protesters being dragged out of a Holocaust event, which the then Irish president used as an opportunity to denigrate Israel, and the debacle over the attempts to rename Chaim Herzog Park in Dublin, will realise that Ireland has a particular problem with antisemitism that is made much worse by the fact that people, from the Taoiseach down, deny that there is an obvious issue.

Ireland does not officially record incidents of antisemitism, so the Jewish Representative Council of Ireland took on that task and, yesterday, published its findings. The saddening but key points about the insidious racism of antisemitism are that, among a population of 2,200 people who identified as Jewish, there were 143 antisemitic incidents. Worse than that, the council believes that antisemitic incidents are being under-reported by 75%. There is no official state mechanism for recording antisemitic incidents, but the most common forms of harm included verbal abuse or slurs, threats and direct intimidation. The incidents occurred in everyday settings and everyday environments. A third were reported in public spaces: in educational settings, such as universities and schools; in workplaces; in healthcare settings; in retail and hospitality settings; on public transport; and in homes and residential contexts.

Antisemitism is not confined to protests and demonstrations and the extremist views that are spread everywhere. It is experienced in the places where people work, study and try to access essential services. The digital targeting is particularly offensive and insidious. Holocaust distortion and denial is commonplace. Antisemitic conspiracies are everywhere: not only are they talking about historical issues, they are now talking about contemporary and other active issues. One of the worst things is that people were specifically identified by their accent, by speaking Hebrew in public, by wearing Jewish symbols or by being Jewish. That has absolutely nothing to do with a person's views or accounts; it just shows the degree of antisemitism that is prevalent in the Irish Republic. Something must be done.

Mr O'Toole: I want to talk about the events in the Middle East, specifically the local response. I will follow on from remarks made by Mr Buckley a few minutes ago.

Yesterday, I stood up and gave my party's view on the deeply destabilising, illegal and reckless acts by the madman Trump and his Government that are creating more conflict in the Middle East. That was my party position. Other parties gave their position. It is totally legitimate for political parties and their leaders to set out political views. However, the First Minister and deputy First Minister, collectively, are in charge of devolved government here. It is their responsibility to set out a response to the issues that pertain to the community living in Northern Ireland as well as set out legitimate party political responses to the conflict. It is completely incoherent, dysfunctional and unacceptable that the First Minister and deputy First Minister cannot, between themselves, agree anything approaching a joint statement. That is the fault of both the First Minister and deputy First Minister and their parties, because they clearly prioritise party political —.

Mr Buckley: Nonsense.

Mr O'Toole: You have had your say, Mr Buckley.

They clearly prioritise party political bickering over the public good. We are less than a year since the publication of the COVID public inquiry report, which talked about how political parties prioritise. At the time of COVID, the First Minister and deputy First Minister, again from the DUP and Sinn Féin, prioritised their party political interests over the public good, with the DUP trying to use a petition of concern to block public health measures. It is happening again.

Between leaving home for work yesterday and driving home after work, I saw petrol prices go up. Our society is heavily car-reliant because we are so rural. Nearly 70% of our population relies on home heating oil. We know that many people from the North — British citizens, Irish citizens and both from every constituency — will struggle to get back from the Middle East. Those people and their families have real anxiety.

Every one of us has a constituent or knows a friend or family member who is based in Dubai, the United Arab Emirates or elsewhere in the Middle East.

The First Minister and deputy First Minister cannot even put together a clear statement of the local response without prejudice to their own political views on the rightness or wrongness of Trump's actions — I think that they are totally wrong, by the way — but that should not stop those who take a Pledge of Office, accept a salary and get driven here in a car every day from agreeing a local response so that the public can have some sense of local political accountability and local political leadership. However, those two parties never see the public good.

We just heard Mr Buckley stand up and bicker. We saw the First Minister do her own video yesterday, rather than agreeing with the deputy First Minister. The deputy First Minister tweeted yesterday about how awful Sinn Féin is. The public just want an agreed local response on energy prices, on local people who are stuck in the Emirates and on other potential consequences, including refugees. Let us grow up and serve the public rather than party political interests.

Ms Ferguson: Women across Ireland deserve access to timely, accessible and good care for endometriosis. Endometriosis has, for too long, been misunderstood and misaddressed. I was pleased, therefore, to secure confirmation from the Health Minister that plans and investment for endometriosis services will commence in 2026.

Delays in diagnosis and treatment for endometriosis can lead to chronic pelvic pain, infertility problems, fatigue and lasting damage to women's health due to long-term complications. That does not even cover the significant impacts of endometriosis pain on women's daily lives and activities and the toll on their mental health and well-being.

Endometriosis can affect multiple organs and cause complex symptoms. Multidisciplinary specialist services and coordinated care must be urgently provided. Access to gynaecologists, fertility specialists, incision and colorectal surgeons, urologists, pain management services, pelvic health physiologists and others are fundamental to helping women living with endometriosis. That will improve symptom control, reduce the risks of repeated surgery and support long-term quality of life.

Sinn Féin has consistently advocated compassionate, informed care for endometriosis and worked to tackle systemic failures, stigma and inequality in access to women's healthcare. I commend the work of the Derry Well Women endometriosis support group for its consistent and strong advocacy over the years.

As we approach International Women's Day on Sunday and in this endometriosis awareness month, I reiterate our party's support for closing the gender health gap and ensuring that all women have access to the care that they need, no matter where they are.

Ms Forsythe: As holders of public office here, MLAs adhere to the Nolan principles. Public appointments are roles in public life that are held in high esteem, such as the Children's Commissioner, the Police Ombudsman and others. Those positions are critical.

In most areas of life, someone who comes under investigation for an offence is suspended from their post without prejudice until the investigation concludes. However, that is not currently the case for certain public appointments. Independence from political interference is rightly valued in certain appointments, but that should not come at a cost of unaccountability.

The Executive Office has recognised that there is a gap in legislation here, but it has not been able to table legislation during the mandate. Therefore, I have tabled an amendment to the Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill to make provision for the suspension of someone who holds a public appointment if they become subject to investigation for an offence. The amendment can introduce accountability while ensuring that it is used only in appropriate circumstances, and it does not interfere with their ability to operate independently. It obviously does not impact on whether an investigation has triggered the suspension and in no way prejudges its outcome. It is a legislative change that is specifically designed to ensure that public confidence in the post that it covers is maintained. I encourage all parties to study it carefully and to support it when it is debated in the Assembly.

The amendment would cover all public appointees in Northern Ireland. It is a step towards increasing public confidence in officeholders for the people of Northern Ireland, and I hope that everyone in the House will support it.

Mr Honeyford: Yesterday morning, families across Northern Ireland woke up to a dramatic rise in the price of home heating oil. It rose instantly, overnight. People here should not pay the price for a war somewhere else. This morning, gas prices have already risen by over 30%. When crude oil prices rise by 10% and local oil prices jump by almost 40%, the public will rightly ask, "Who benefits?". That is precisely why the Alliance Party has continually and consistently argued that home heating oil should be regulated. It should fall within the remit of the regulator.

Mr Frew: Nonsense.

Mr Honeyford: It was in our manifesto in 2022. You can shout whatever you like. It is good that you have caught up with the thing today.

It is essential for people that transparency and fairness are guaranteed. If suppliers are simply passing on the wholesale costs, they need to show their workings. They need to publish the numbers and restore public confidence. The public will rightly call out the fact that prices can rise dramatically in an instant but never seem to come down at the same rate of knots. The reality is that Northern Ireland is the most exposed part of these islands to shocks in global oil and gas. We are the least energy-secure part of these islands. Our energy prices are some of the highest in Europe because our energy is based on fossil fuels that we import, mainly from the Middle East. Around 68% of peoples' homes here rely on heating oil. Every time there is an energy spike, it instantly lands directly on families' tables here.

Energy is the basis of our economy. For our people, it is the cost of heating their home or putting fuel in their car. Energy accounts for 30% of the cost of the food that we eat. When energy spikes, everything spikes. The rising costs land on top of fuel poverty, of which we have some of the highest levels in these islands. Recent reports state that over 40% of households already spend more than 10% of their income on energy. My question to the Minister for the Economy and the Minister for Communities is straightforward: what engagement has taken place or will take place today with the oil suppliers, local industry and the Consumer Council? What immediate support is the Department for Communities discussing for those who will be hit hardest? What contingency planning is under way for if prices climb further?

We want to see oil regulated. The leader of the DUP said today that he wants regulation. The Minister has refused that before: will that be reconsidered? We cannot control global conflict, but we can control whether families here are left exposed. We can try to comfort them and to bring in oversight, support and a plan.

Ms Sheerin: Yesterday, the House debated a motion in which Members could have called for support for the hard-pressed workers and families whom we all represent through greater representation in the EU; instead, political unionism made it about the need for increased defence spending and militarisation. This morning, the DUP is crying about the rise in the price of oil and the cost to our constituents. There is not a word about the human cost of all of those who have lost their life as a result of more unnecessary conflict; instead, there is cheerleading for Netanyahu, Trump and the world's other war leaders who are showing us yet again that they do not care what destruction they cause.

We have been talking about International Women's Day this week, while Israel has murdered 165 young girls. There has been no condemnation of that from the DUP, which instead cries over spilt milk in the form of rising oil prices. Actions have consequences. There is unnecessary conflict across the world, with the killing of innocent people and our constituents suffering as a result. That is when the DUP realise that their support has consequences.

Time and again, we have watched the British Government jump head first into global conflict at every opportunity. America freed itself from Britain and then blindly followed it. What do we have here? We have political unionism doing the same, cheerleading and warmongering at every opportunity. There is no condemnation of the loss of life as a result, and that is an absolute disgrace.

We talk in the House about issues that affect our constituents, but there is no care expressed for the oppressed peoples of the world. Sinn Féin has a proud record on rights. We stand with those who are under occupation and oppression and will continue to do so.

Mr Frew: People are rightly worried about the rise in heating oil prices and the rise in petrol and diesel prices that will inevitably come and has come in a shock fashion. Almost two thirds of homes in Northern Ireland use oil for heating, and, of course, we live in a very rural place, so we all rely on our vehicles and transport to get about. We are susceptible to the worst excesses and spikes in the global market, but it is really important that we look at such things wisely. We have had calls from the Alliance Party for the regulation of the retail market: we have always been and will continue to be opposed to that regulation, because that will hurt consumers more. If you regulate retail markets that are tightly competitive, you put that spike over a period of six months. That is what you will do. We will all pay more at the pumps and at the tanker for oil heating every time we purchase it, not just when it spikes.

We need to do something on wholesale markets. That is what my leader talked about this morning, and it is right that the Utility Regulator is worried about the spike and about crude oil and refined oil. We have one of the best and most tightly contested and competitive retail markets for heating oil.

We should ensure that our consumers and our householders have a choice of heating. When you build houses with no chimneys, when you go to ban wood-burning stoves, when you electrify heat and when you monopolise it, all you do is make sure that consumers and householders have no choice when it comes to heating. That means that prices will go up. You will also pay for that regulation. Every time that you pay at the pump or at the tanker, you will pay for the mechanisms of regulation. There are good reasons why we have regulated electricity markets and gas markets, but even in electricity we do not have a price cap, because, if you have a price cap, that is the cost that you will pay, and you will pay that for six months until the price cap changes. It will never come down; it will always stay at the price cap.

Be wise about this. Protect consumers, do not shaft them.

Mrs Guy: As MLAs, when we rise during Members' statements, we do so to elevate issues that we care about, to celebrate local achievements or to acknowledge special individuals. We also use that platform to hold Ministers and other elected Members to account. That is expected, but there are lines that we do not cross or, rather, that we should not cross when we do it. In that context, no campaigner, not least a mother advocating for her child, should hear themselves referred to in the Chamber by a Minister in a way that leaves them feeling deeply hurt and absolutely humiliated. That is how Alma White felt yesterday when the Health Minister spoke of a private meeting that they had had recently, characterising Alma as being "upset" and not really understanding — not really understanding.

There is no MLA who understands the Caleb's cause fight better than the lady who founded it, the mother of the young man who inspired it and the tireless advocate who, in around two years, has made that cause a household name. She has had post-19 SEN reform included in the Programme for Government, has moved the Economy Minister to act with legislation and has cultivated a social media community of thousands of parents all in that same struggle for their children. Believe me when I say that she understands. They understand.

Next Monday, there is a Caleb's cause event at Stormont in the Long Gallery. Minister Nesbitt, I hope that you will still attend. I hope that you will come with an apology. I hope that you will come with an announcement that you, as Health Minister, have used your authority to instruct your officials to prioritise the amendment in this mandate or, at the very least, that you will say how you will progress that policy so that we can deliver this speedily in the next mandate.

Being in government is hard. Being a Minister carries a heavy burden of responsibility. We all get that, but leadership is human if nothing else. Yesterday, you made an error — we are all capable of that — but you have time now to reflect and decide what you do next, and that fact is something that we all understand.

Ms D Armstrong: Today, when the Assembly is recognising International Women's Day 2026, I will mark a momentous milestone that is being celebrated: 100 years of Girlguiding in County Fermanagh; a century full of courage, friendship, adventure and service; a century in which girls and young women have been given the tools, confidence and community to grow into the best version of themselves.

When girl guiding first took root in County Fermanagh in 1925, it did so through the determination of pioneering women such as Vera Jenkins and Nellie Inglis, the county's first leaders, trained by the inspirational Australian Lilian Irwin. Soon after, Flora MacManaway and Catherine Trail opened the first Brownie pack, laying foundations that would support generations of girls. Their early leadership sparked a movement that has shaped lives for 100 years.

Think for a moment how much the world has changed since those first Guides met. Society, technology and opportunities have transformed beyond recognition, yet the core values of girl guiding — integrity, resilience, service and a spirit of adventure — have remained throughout a century of change. Those values have carried hundreds if not thousands of Fermanagh girls through childhood and into adulthood, influencing careers, families and communities.

The county's impact on the wider guiding world has been significant. Former members, such as the late Sue Hogg and Carole Graham, who went on to serve as Ulster chief commissioners, and Catherine Irwin, who became chair of the board of trustees, demonstrated the strength of leadership that grew from that small but mighty county. Their achievements showed what guiding can inspire. Behind every success story lies the unwavering dedication of volunteers; leaders who give their evenings, weekends and hearts to ensure that every girl has a place to belong. Their commitment over 10 decades is the backbone of County Fermanagh's guiding story.

The girls and young women who wear the uniforms of Rainbows, Brownies, Guides and Rangers in Fermanagh are today part of a legacy built by extraordinary women and strengthened by generations of Guides, and we can look forward to many more successes. Certainly, I look forward to hearing about them as the second century begins.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): Today I publish a new policy framework for general qualifications in Northern Ireland, one that will ensure that the qualifications taken by our young people are truly fit for the modern world. The framework will support clear and positive progression for every learner and equip them with the knowledge, skills and confidence that they need to thrive in life beyond school.

Reform of our qualifications system is an integral part of TransformED, my ambitious strategy to transform teaching and learning in Northern Ireland. While vocational qualifications will remain an important part of the school curriculum and will be reviewed over coming months, my initial focus is on reforming Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) GCSE, AS and A-level qualifications, which is long overdue.

We are right to be proud of the strong results achieved by young people here, but high grades alone are not enough. My focus is not only on maintaining strong performance but on improving the quality of the learning experience behind those results. Time in front of a skilled teacher is the single most important driver of higher standards. Young people deserve to enjoy their learning, to be challenged by it and to have the time to explore subjects in real depth, mastering the foundational knowledge and skills that will carry them forward into further study, training and employment. Yet, too often the curriculum at Key Stage 4 and post 16 has become dominated by crammed content and teaching to the test.

Survey after survey and young people themselves tell us that they are more stressed and anxious than ever. That should not come as a surprise. For four consecutive years, pupils face a relentless cycle of high-stakes, high-pressure exams. In many cases, they sit more examinations than students in most other countries. That places undue pressure on pupils, their families and their schools. It is difficult to cultivate a love of learning when the curriculum is reduced to a focus on teaching past papers, mark schemes and test preparation. Transforming our education system requires us to change that culture. Our system must be ambitious, rigorous and world class, but it must also be humane, balanced and focused on genuine learning. The reforms that I am setting out today will help us achieve exactly that.

My Department's consultation on the future of CCEA GCSE, AS and A-level qualifications showed strong support for retaining the GCSE and A-level brands. Parents, pupils, teachers, employers and higher education institutions all told us that those two brands should remain. Those qualifications carry weight and ensure that our young people can compete confidently at home, across the United Kingdom and internationally.

The consultation delivered another strong and consistent message: our qualifications contain too much content and too much assessment. Teachers and learners told us that the balance is not right and that change is needed. Too much content means that pupils rush from one topic to the next without having the time that they need to secure deep understanding. Too much assessment means that teachers spend more time preparing pupils for exams than they do teaching the subject. That is not the education that our young people deserve or that will prepare them for the future. International evidence shows that young people learn more, not less, when they have the space to master key ideas in greater depth. Systems that perform well globally teach fewer things better and assess only what truly matters. By rebalancing content and reducing assessment in CCEA GCSEs and A levels, we will give back to our young people the time to enjoy learning and time to understand, explore and grow.

We will remove controlled assessment and coursework in CCEA qualifications wherever possible. Where those components are essential to assessing core practical skills in subjects such as technology, PE and art, they will be retained, and assessment will be strengthened. That proposed approach was strongly supported by school leaders and teachers in the recent consultation. The change reflects what they told us, which was that current arrangements are workload-intensive for staff and pupils, often disadvantage those with less support at home and, in an age of artificial intelligence (AI), no longer provide a consistently fair or rigorous measure of individual attainment.

Parents and young people were worried about the removal of controlled assessment and coursework. That is understandable, but the evidence, including that from the teaching profession, is clear: the change is needed, because depth beats volume. Too much coursework pushes teaching towards task completion and away from deep learning. International and domestic reviews have long flagged how coursework can distort classroom practice and create reliability problems.

Fairness matters. The review of controlled assessment by the Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation (Ofqual) found persistent concerns about authenticity, inconsistent controls and uneven levels of teacher and parental support, all of which risk systematic advantage for more affluent pupils over others.

Workload matters. The current system places an unsustainable burden on teachers. Internally assessed components demand excessive time for design, supervision, marking and moderation. Removing non-essential coursework reduces teacher workload and gives back time for teachers to teach and for pupils to learn. Stripping back unnecessary internal assessment is a core workload-reduction measure. It will release teachers from hours of avoidable bureaucracy, give them the time and professional freedom that they need to teach well and ensure that pupils spend more of their school experience engaged in meaningful learning rather than in excessive assessment.

Equity matters. A large Ofqual-commissioned analysis shows that coursework does not impact on all student groups equally, with better outcomes linked to student characteristics and centre contexts, raising concerns about equity and portability. Do we really believe that coursework is fair in the era of AI? Take-home written tasks are now highly susceptible to AI assistance. We cannot sustain high-stakes coursework when detection tools are completely unreliable. When a student can generate a polished essay in seconds, coursework stops measuring learning and starts measuring who has the best access to AI. Take-home tasks were designed for a world in which work could be authenticated: generative AI has ended that world, and we must move on.

I turn to the structure of qualifications. The recent consultation showed that most stakeholders favoured retaining modular GCSEs and A levels. Many expressed concerns that a fully linear model could increase pressure on pupils and potentially disadvantage some young people, particularly pupils in non-selective schools or those with special educational needs. Others feared that a linear approach might favour high performers and widen existing gaps. Those concerns are understandable, but they must be considered alongside the very clear research evidence published in my Department's response to the consultation. We do not need to speculate. The evidence shows that, in places where linear approaches have already been implemented, there is no indication of any disadvantage to overall outcomes or to any specific cohort of pupils. It is also important to recognise that, contrary to common belief, modular examinations were not introduced as a deliberate measure to enhance equity or support particular groups of learners; rather, they emerged largely from commercial decisions by awarding bodies, whose interests were served by increasing the number of examination entries.

Furthermore, fears that moving away from modular structures would depress grade outcomes are not supported by the research. Studies carried out by Ofqual and the Oxford University Centre for Educational Assessment (OUCEA) found no educationally significant difference in outcomes between linear and modular examination systems. They also found that equity gaps, whether by gender, socio-economic status or school type, were not affected by exam structure. While some teachers believed that certain groups of pupils might perform better under a modular system, that perception is not borne out in the outcome data. Common beliefs about modular being easier are simply not supported by data. They also misunderstand how GCSEs and A levels are awarded. CCEA sets awarding standards to ensure stability and fairness when specifications or assessment methods change. CCEA, like other awarding bodies, puts controls in place to ensure that changes in qualification structure do not, in any way, distort achievement. It is also worth noting that modular examination structures are not internationally typical. Neither the Republic of Ireland nor England uses modular systems at secondary level. The evidence is unambiguous: it needs to be understood, and it must inform the decisions that we make.

I turn to A levels. CCEA's A-level qualifications are currently structured with an AS level in year 13 contributing 40% to the overall grade. In the consultation, a fully linear A level with no AS component was proposed. The response to that proposal was clear and heartfelt. Many believed that placing all assessment at the end of year 14 would drive pupils' stress and anxiety even higher, given that A levels determine university entry and that, unlike at GCSE, most students take only three subjects. With so few subjects, stakeholders felt that each examination becomes disproportionately high-stakes, and they emphasised the pressure that that could place on some young people. I understand those concerns. I understand why teachers, parents and pupils were worried about a fully linear structure with everything riding on a single set of exams. At the same time, we must acknowledge that the current structure carries many, deep-rooted problems.

Northern Ireland pupils take far more exams than their peers in England to achieve the same qualifications owing to the AS structure. A geography student here must sit six exams for a single A level: three in year 13 for AS and three in year 14. A pupil in England studying the same subject for the same university course sits just three exams. When multiplied across three A levels, our pupils can face up to 18 exams across two years, compared with six for pupils in England — and that is before we consider resits.

We must ask ourselves honestly: is that fair? Is that good for mental health and well-being? Are our young people better served by 18 examinations instead of six?

Resits add to the number of exams that many pupils take to complete their A-level qualifications. Resits significantly increase the assessment burden on pupils, yet they deliver very little benefit. Despite the additional stress, exam preparation and lost learning time that they require, resits rarely lead to better outcomes. In 2025, only 7% of students who retook an AS unit improved their overall A-level grade.

On top of that, the current AS structure leads to a significant loss of teaching time. Many pupils finish year 13 by late April because AS exams dominate the summer term. They often miss two full months of valuable time at school, and that inevitably has the biggest impact on the most vulnerable children who need to be in school. I ask Assembly colleagues this: does losing weeks of learning in year 13 for AS exams help students to thrive?

When England moved to linear A levels in 2015 and removed the contribution of AS exams to the final grade, schools reported regaining as much as eight weeks of teaching time. The AS levels in England were deliberately decoupled from A levels and became stand-alone qualifications, with the results no longer counting towards the A-level grade. Universities across the United Kingdom adapted immediately. They do not require AS levels, they do not expect them, and they do not disadvantage applicants who do not take them. The AS level in its current form is not needed for university entry through UCAS. It places a heavy pressure on young people, consumes valuable teaching time and no longer adds meaningful value to progression.

My Department has therefore worked closely with CCEA to design a better approach to A levels tailored specifically for Northern Ireland. CCEA will now develop a new two-year, modular A level. It will contain three units across two years, significantly reducing the total number of exams, while still allowing pupils to take one designated unit at the end of year 13 if they wish. That unit will count for 30% of the overall grade, and the remaining two units, which will be completed in year 14, will make up the final 70%. The schools that prefer to deliver the new A levels in a linear format can enter pupils for all units in year 14. Pupils who take the year-13 unit will also have the option to resit it in year 14.

This is a balanced, considered design. It preserves early assessment for those who wish it, reduces exam overload and strengthens teaching and learning. To ensure that pupils stay in school for as much of year 13 as possible, I have asked CCEA to timetable the optional year-13 unit at the very end of June. That is not possible for AS exams due to the constraints of the common timetable across the awarding bodies. The new approach protects crucial learning time and avoids the early departure that currently disrupts teaching.

Over the past week, my officials have met principals from a wide range of schools, and there has been strong support for the new model. It addresses the worries raised in the consultation while delivering a more coherent and less stressful system.

I am also concerned about the misuse of AS outcomes by a small number of schools that use AS results to block entry into year 14. That practice is not in the interests of pupils, and the current structure enables it. Removing the AS level as a separate qualification eliminates the misuse and ensures that students are judged on their readiness to progress, not on an intermediate exam that universities do not require or value.

The AS level is a qualification that has outlived its purpose; it has no function or relevance. It is the fax machine of the modern qualification system. The new modular A level removes a redundant qualification that no longer serves its purpose, while preserving those elements in the current system that teachers and pupils told us they value. In short, fewer exams, more time to teach, more time to learn and still the option of a year-13 assessment for those who benefit from it. A bespoke solution for Northern Ireland: a better, fairer, clearer system for our children.

I have decided not to proceed with the proposal to align the CCEA GCSE grading scale with the 9-to-1 system that is used in England. The consultation showed that there is limited support for that change. While a single grading scale would provide consistency, there is no compelling educational reason to alter the current system. In the absence of clear benefits for learners, teachers or employers, it would not be justified.

I have carefully considered the structure of GCSE qualifications. My approach to that is, again, to ensure a bespoke, best-possible solution for Northern Ireland. English, maths and science are central to educational achievement. GCSE English and maths are key passport qualifications. Together with science, those subjects give young people the core knowledge and intellectual tools that underpin success across the curriculum and open doors to future study, training and employment. English, maths and single and double award science will therefore remain modular, meaning that, if schools wish to enter pupils for GCSE exams in year 11, the focus will be on supporting strong attainment in those core subjects rather than on widespread early entry.

Practical subjects will continue to have non-examined assessment of key skills. All other CCEA GCSEs will adopt a linear structure, preventing over-examination and disruption to learning in year 11. We do not need our 14- and 15-year-old children to enter a series of high-stakes exams in year 11. Members should ask themselves which country, internationally, does that. Early entry does not benefit young people. Many pupils who are entered for unit exams in year 11 are likely to achieve better results at the first sitting if they take their exams at the end of year 12, when they are more mature and have benefited from more teaching time; otherwise, they compete against older pupils in year 12 who have enjoyed an extra year of teaching. Outcomes are often not as good for year 11 pupils.

The new approach will end the culture of endless GCSE resits whereby pupils are encouraged to take exams early, before they are fully ready, on the basis that they can resit the paper the following year. That is not in the best interests of our young people. The reduction in content and the change to having no more than two assessments in most GCSE subjects will ensure that children do not face too many exams in year 12. Unlike at A level, children take a broad range of subjects at GCSE, so no single exam in a single subject is particularly high stakes or pressurised. Each A level involves 360 guided-learning hours, compared with only 120 hours for each GCSE. It is understandable that older pupils may wish to bank assessment after a year of study for an A-level subject, which involved so many more guided hours and determines university entry. The context for GCSEs is quite different.

That is the right approach to take for GCSEs. It restores balance and purpose to the qualification. It puts teaching and learning, not testing, at the centre of the two-year course. It recognises that our young people deserve time to grow, rather than being entered for eight, nine or 10 high-stakes exams at only 14 or 15 years of age. It gives them time to master the core knowledge and skills that matter most and to sit their exams when they are genuinely ready to succeed. By keeping English, maths and science modular, we protect the focus on passport subjects, which open doors. By making other GCSEs linear, we remove unnecessary assessment pressure and end the cycle of early entry and resits that does little to raise standards and much to disrupt learning. By reducing content and limiting assessments, we ensure that no pupil faces an excessive exam load at the age of 16.

In short, this system is built around what is best for pupils: more time to learn, more stability across the two years and a clearer, fairer route to strong outcomes. It is a system that reflects international best practice, values depth over haste and puts the well-being and progress of our children first. It is the right, balanced and ambitious model for Northern Ireland, and it will give our young people the firm foundation that they deserve.

The decisions that I have outlined today are published in a formal policy framework that is available on my Department's website. We will move immediately into the next phase of work, which will happen in the coming weeks and months and is to develop the new regulatory framework for CCEA qualifications and prepare the detailed arrangements that will support implementation across the education system. The revision of CCEA's qualifications will then proceed over the next couple of years, in close partnership with teachers and practitioners across Northern Ireland. They have been telling us for a long time that the current qualifications are not working as they should and are no longer fit for purpose. Now, at last, we have the chance to put that right.

I have also heard the concerns about the pace of change, and I agree: we must get this right. That is why the introduction of revised qualifications will be phased in carefully over several years, with first teaching of the new GCSEs from September 2029. That timeline gives schools the certainty and space that they need to plan well. CCEA will provide clear support materials, detailed guidance and high-quality training well in advance and will work directly with schools and partners throughout the transition. No school will be left to navigate these changes alone. We will continue to listen and refine as we go. Further details setting out the timetable for the work, alongside the planned reforms to curriculum and assessment, will be announced in the coming days.

Our commitment is simple: steady, supported implementation, shaped by feedback and focused on what is best for pupils and teachers. We now have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reshape qualifications so that they truly serve our young people. These qualifications will build with continuity from a more coherent and well-sequenced curriculum. These reforms place learning, not testing, at the centre of education. They reduce unnecessary pressure, restore precious teaching time and ensure that every pupil, regardless of background, has the chance to master the knowledge and skills that will carry them into further study, work and adult life with confidence. They replace outdated structures with a coherent, modern and evidence-informed system that is designed for Northern Ireland, not inherited by default. They listen to what teachers have told us for years. Above all, they send a clear signal that we value depth over distraction, understanding over box-ticking, and the long-term success of our children over the short-term convenience of old habits.

I believe profoundly that this package of reforms will give every learner in Northern Ireland a fairer, richer and more ambitious educational experience. It is the right framework at the right moment for the future that we want to build. These changes will be good for pupils, teachers and Northern Ireland. I commend the statement to the House.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, people will take time to digest that extremely detailed statement, but the upshot is that you want to move towards a much more linear — and, therefore, more pressurised — exam structure for young people. That was clearly not the response that you got from young people or parents. What do you say to those young people who told you that they did not want this, but you went ahead and did it anyway?

You mentioned the Republic of Ireland and England as examples. The Republic of Ireland is making the Leaving Cert more modular, not less modular. This appears to be a reheating of Michael Gove's reforms. To that end, given all the controversy about decisions that have or have not been made at the Executive, have any of those reforms been discussed around the Executive table?

Mr Givan: I listened to the feedback in the consultation, and I outlined in the statement how that has been incorporated. We have retained the grading structure of A, B, C, D and so on, rather than moving to the 1 to 9; that came back in the consultation, and I listened to that. We have not adopted what England has, which is a totally linear process across all its subjects at GCSE and A level. I have identified key GCSEs that will retain modularity. I am introducing new A levels on the basis of having a modular approach. The feedback from young people included a concern that, at the end of year 14, everything would rest on a high-stakes exam. I have listened to that. I have got rid of the old and outdated AS brand, which is detrimental to learning outcomes, and replaced it with a modern, fit-for-purpose approach that can be linear and modular, providing choice to the pupils who want to do it.

The Member referred to testing. What he is advocating is retaining the status quo, in which young people at the age of 14 or 15 in year 11 sit exams, have resits, sit them again in year 12, sit more exams in year 13, and then have more resits and sit more exams in year 14.

That factory line of testing is contributing to anxiety and stress and is affecting the mental well-being of our young people. I have listened to our young people: they want change. I am delivering change that will not only provide better academic outcomes right across the spectrum for people based on their educational attainment levels but reduce anxiety, stress and teacher workload, which is an issue that teachers repeatedly speak about.

The Member referred to the Republic of Ireland. We will wait to see what changes the Republic of Ireland makes in the future. However, the current approach in the Republic of Ireland is a totally linear one. Again, I have rejected that position and delivered a bespoke process for Northern Ireland that is built in Northern Ireland and will benefit our young people.

Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): Minister, under your proposals for A levels, it seems that we will move to a scenario where the majority of examinations are focused at the end of two years of study. Young people are clearly concerned that, rather than easing the pressure that you referred to, that will lead to higher pressure and higher stakes. How will you avoid such a risk?

Mr Givan: An AS level currently contributes 40% to the final mark for an A level. Under a modular approach to A levels, a unit that is completed in year 13 will have a 30% weighting, so the difference is marginal. However, there is a fundamentally important difference. Some schools put out young people in year 13 for two weeks to revise and for one week to sit their mocks in January. That is three weeks during which they are not in the classroom in front of a teacher. They then sit their AS levels in May, having already left school to go on study leave. Some children are, therefore, losing eight to 10 weeks of teaching time. How does putting young people out of school help those who struggle educationally, those who need to have the expert teaching in the classroom and those with additional needs? I have retained the modular option and the ability to bank a unit but in a way that will provide those young people with much greater exposure to expert teaching in the classroom from their teachers.

Mr Sheehan: When asked for evidence to support his assertion that educational outcomes would be improved by the creation of a managing authority for the controlled sector, the Minister pointed to the consultation responses. In this case, the consultation responses on stand-alone AS qualifications and coursework were overwhelmingly opposed to the Minister's proposals. Therefore, can the Minister tell us when consultation responses are evidence and when they are not? If he is so concerned about anxiety among children in the lead-up to exams, why has he not considered the removal of academic selection?

Mr Givan: The consultation solicited around 8,000 responses. After going through and considering the responses, the Department engaged in three regional conferences that were attended by significant numbers of school leadership teams and principals from across our post-primary schools. We went through all those issues. The feedback on AS levels was that it is not that people want to retain the AS brand; it is that they want to retain the ability to bank a unit of that qualification at the end of year 13.

The process that I am following rejects the approaches in England and the Republic of Ireland — the Leaving Cert is a totally linear position — and provides an opportunity to bank a unit on completion of year 13, but I am doing that in a way that gets rid of an obsolete qualification that only Northern Ireland and Wales have. Wales's international performance is not something that we should seek to emulate. I seek to emulate the Republic of Ireland's performance at an international level. We should not be one of only two outliers that have retained the flawed AS qualification. The underpinning issue that was presented — I get it; I heard from young people — was the concern that everything would ride on the very last set of exams in year 14. I have landed in a way that, I believe, delivers a bespoke solution for Northern Ireland that will accommodate young people who still want to complete a unit at the end of year 13.

Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for the detailed and comprehensive statement. Will his reforms allow students to sit exams for qualifications from other awarding bodies and exam boards?

Mr Givan: CCEA is the predominant awarding body in Northern Ireland. I think that 98% of qualifications here are awarded by it. When we make the changes, qualifications will align with our curriculum. CCEA qualifications will align with the curriculum that we will be publishing in draft format for consultation in the coming weeks and that will then be delivered in our schools. I can therefore see no reason why a school would want to do an examination from a different awarding body if that examination were not to align with our curriculum.

The vocational qualifications that are available in schools are not part of the process. They will continue to be offered in schools.

Mr Baker: Minister, I do not think that you are listening to young people at all. I could ask so many questions, but I will ask about AS levels. You intend to scrap the AS level as a stand-alone qualification. What discussions have you had with the universities in Ireland about the loss of that externally recognised year-13 award for students who apply to universities across this island? By the way, Minister, the Leaving Certificate is not totally linear.

Mr Givan: I am listening to young people. Perhaps Members have not listened to what is being said about the extreme levels of anxiety that exist as a result of the current system: the status quo. People are saying that those who do not want to see that change made want to retain the status quo. The status quo is a testing factory for our young people. For four years, we put young people through repeated examinations. Evidence shows that only 7% of those who resit AS levels improve their A-level grades at the end of the process. Do the maths. That means that the A-level outcome for 93% of the young people who resit AS levels is not improved. Why would we therefore put our young people through that kind of process? What does it do to the self-esteem and mental well-being of pupils in year 11 who are being entered for exams, in which they are competing against children who are a year older and who have had an extra year of teaching, and are then not passing those exams? How does that help the mental health of young people who, having failed them, repeat AS levels, only for no difference to be made to the outcome? In fact, doing that is detrimental to their A-level outcome, because when they need to be focused on their A2 tests, which make up 60% of an A level, they are distracted by having to resit the 40% component part. As I said, 93% of young people will not see an improvement. That is not the kind of education system that is of benefit to young people.

The Member raised a point about universities. I will join Sinn Féin, as I did when I met the Minister for the Economy, in campaigning for the South to remove its partitionist agenda for accessing its universities. Why are universities in the Republic of Ireland incapable of accepting what the Oxbridge universities, the Russell Group universities and other universities across the United Kingdom, including those in Northern Ireland, accept for their top applicants? When it comes to that issue, we should therefore not comply with the discriminatory policy towards Northern Ireland students, which has been institutionalised by the Republic of Ireland. We should instead take on the discrimination in the South by helping abolish the partitionist agenda. I will work with Sinn Féin to get rid of the discriminatory practices that, I agree, are prejudicial to our young people in Northern Ireland, but that is not a justification for retaining an inhumane, ineffective qualification system in Northern Ireland.

Mr Burrows: I —.

Mr Sheehan: What about 10- and 11-year-olds?

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Burrows is speaking.

Mr Burrows: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I support many of the Minister's proposals. I do not take a party political view, but I do have concerns — concerns that parents and young people have expressed — about the removal of coursework and AS levels. The concern is that that will increase young people's stress levels, as well as the stakes.

Another concern that I have heard directly from teachers is that removing AS levels may not reduce teacher workload, because they will have to compensate with summer mock exams to get a good marker on the progress of pupils who are studying for A levels. Minister, what percentage of the young people and parents who were consulted supported the retention of coursework and AS levels?

Mr Givan: The concerns that the Member raises came through in the consultation process. When there is any change, people will have concerns. That was reflected in the teaching profession as well. For example, teachers were very much in favour of reducing the controlled assessment aspect and coursework, but parents and pupils were less so. There was a tension: on the one hand, you had professional practitioners saying, "We believe that there should be a change in the controlled assessment aspect"; but, on the other, there was a concern — it was perhaps a misunderstanding, but it was sincerely felt — among parents and pupils. There was even a tension in the consultation responses. My responsibility as a Minister is to consider those responses, listen to experts in Northern Ireland, examine what happens internationally and, ultimately, take decisions based on all that information. A consultation is informative in that process. I have listened and heard those concerns, and they are reflected in the approach that I have taken to A levels.

The challenge to the Member and to those who want to retain the status quo — the Member did not indicate that he wants that — is that you then need to stand over the current system, which, in some schools, excludes young people in year 13 for upwards of 10 extra weeks because they are not in the classroom being taught. We need to realise that, for young people who struggle educationally and those who come from a more socially disadvantaged background, the time that they have in front of a teacher is the most critical time. If they are from a socially disadvantaged background, they will not get additional tuition outside school and may not get the additional support to complete coursework that is available to some families and, indeed, can be provided by other people who support that child. Therefore, what I am proposing will create greater equity and fairness, and there will be much higher levels of integrity when it comes to making sure that the work that is completed is authentic and properly measures pupils' performance.

I have taken a balanced approach. I did not go down the route of England and go fully linear at GCSE or A level. Mr Baker is wrong: the Leaving Cert is fully linear. Coursework being included does not make it not linear. It is fully linear. Members need to familiarise themselves with the outworkings of the systems in other jurisdictions. This is a balanced approach. We have heard the concerns, and, in reflecting on those concerns and the pace at which this change will take place, I am giving significant lead-in time. It will not happen this September or the following September. It will be worked up by CCEA, the awarding body, and significant materials will be provided to schools. All the appropriate professional learning that is needed will take place, and we will be able to phase it in in a manageable way. However, if we continue to take the current approach, that means a high level of testing, a high level of anxiety for our young people and a high workload for teachers because of the excessive amount of content and controlled assessment. That would just be repeating the current doom loop that the profession, rightly, complains about and that pupils feel does not best serve their interests.

Mr Frew: Minister, will linear exams affect outcomes, and do you expect results to change?

Mr Givan: No. I absolutely do not expect lower outcomes. The research evidence shows very clearly that, in places where linear approaches have been implemented, there is no indication of any disadvantage to overall outcomes or to any specific cohort of pupils. Common beliefs about modular exams being easier are simply not supported by data. Such beliefs also misunderstand how GCSEs and A levels are awarded. CCEA sets awarding standards to ensure stability.

The principle of comparable outcomes is used by all major awarding bodies across the UK, including CCEA in Northern Ireland, and ensures fairness when specifications or assessment methods change. The goal of the comparable outcomes approach is to keep grade standards consistent over time so that GCSE or A-level grades mean the same regardless of when or how the exam was taken. By applying controls throughout the awarding process, CCEA and other boards ensure that changes in structure do not in any way distort achievement.

Mrs Guy: Skills groups and industries in Northern Ireland have consistently expressed that it is vital that our young people focus on developing life skills, including communication and teamwork, especially in the AI era. Does the Minister believe that the proposed changes will ensure that more time is placed on developing those essential skills?

Mr Givan: The Member highlights how we can create more time to develop important skills. Greater detailed knowledge on particular subjects gives you the ability to develop important skills such as critical thinking and teamwork. I recently attended a private industry event. It was Software NI's AGM, and part of the feedback that I got when I provided the update on the TransformED process was that there was agreement that, too often, we skim through subjects and get a surface-level, limited understanding. Often, our exams are a test of memory as opposed to a test of understanding. Being able to spend more time on fewer issues gives greater depth and knowledge. Industry believes that that is important.

In answer to the Member's question, I believe that the changes will create more time and space for greater knowledge and understanding among young people in important areas that can be applied in various skills and sectors in Northern Ireland.

Mrs Mason: Minister, I have lost count of how many times you have mentioned stress, pressure and anxiety on students. You say that you want to reduce that, notably for 14-, 15-, 16- and 17-year-olds but not 10- and 11-year-olds who have to sit a high-stakes exam. Under the new system, most GCSE subjects will now be decided entirely at the end of year 12, which means that you, effectively, rejected the consultation responses that you received. Minister, time and again, I have heard from pupils who suffer from anxiety when they are going into exams, even though they know that they will have a chance to repeat them, and I am sure that you will have heard those stories as well. Please explain your rationale for concentrating assessments in high-stakes final exams. How will that reduce stress for our young people?

Mr Givan: The argument here is not whether or not we should have exams, and the Member has not made that proposition. There will always be exams, and there will always be an element of pressure. We cannot remove that from our education system. For me, these are the important considerations: when is the most appropriate time for sitting those exams and how relevant are they to what pupils have been taught?

As I outlined, a post-16 pupil here will sit 18 exams to get onto a university course, whereas an English pupil will only sit six across three A levels to get onto the same course. How can anybody credibly defend our young people sitting 18 exams compared with six exams to get onto a course? That is not fair, and it is not good for their mental health. The process that I have outlined is better, but it is unique and bespoke to Northern Ireland. It is not something that I have lifted from the Republic of Ireland, because I think that its approach is not the right one exclusively, nor is it the English model. It is made in Northern Ireland for Northern Ireland, and I think that we have taken the right position.

Mr Harvey: Minister, how does this compare with what is being done in other leading countries?

Mr Givan: As part of the work around TransformED, we have our local experts and our international experts, and we are bringing all of that together. I have outlined how my approach is a balanced one, but there are leading countries at an international level that take a linear approach, including the Republic of Ireland, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Norway and Finland. Our current approach to education makes us the outlier: we are on the fringes. We have not been following the evidence and research on this particular issue, which has moved on over time, but we are doing so now. We recognise what other countries that lead in education internationally have been doing, and we are bringing our education system forward, rather than remaining with a process that does not work effectively and is not good for all of our young people. This is an improvement that is in line with international best practice.

Mr Wilson: Minister, will you outline the rationale behind your decision?

Mr Givan: My statement covered, in a lot of detail, why we have taken this approach. I do not believe that retaining modular GCSEs is in the best interests of our pupils. Research indicates that the structure of qualifications does not impact negatively on overall outcomes, nor does it impact detrimentally on learners who experience socio-economic deprivation or have additional educational needs. Members need to keep that at the forefront of their minds. I am very much focused on closing the educational attainment gap between those who have and those who have not — those who, because of their backgrounds, do not have the same opportunities as others.

I genuinely want every school to be a good school. That is why TransformED is driving forward changes to the curriculum, assessment and qualifications and driving school improvement. The decisions that I have announced make up one of the key pillars of the TransformED process. They will deliver on commitments that I made to bring forward the transformation that we need so that Northern Ireland can compete at an international level and they will close the educational attainment gap. That should be our focus.

Non-selective schools often have in them young people from disadvantaged backgrounds. That brings me back to Mr Baker's point about universities in the South. How many non-selective schools have their children sitting four AS levels? Very few. Similarly, very few grammar schools have their children sitting four AS levels. To get onto a top course, which, in the Republic of Ireland, would typically be a medicine course, three A*s at A level and an AS level A grade are required. That does not help those who come from a non-selective school background, so why would we want to retain that? Let us fight the discrimination in relation to access to universities in the Republic of Ireland. I will have no hesitation in joining Mr Baker in doing that. I am not with him on many issues, but I will remove partition when it comes to access to universities in the Republic of Ireland.

Mr McMurray: I thank the Minister. I will attend a meeting on my daughter's GCSE choices tomorrow afternoon, so I might be able to get you a bit of feedback there [Laughter.]

We have talked a bit about closing off resits in year 11. In year 12, if a student perhaps does not get the results that they require in an exam, will that pathway to progress through the education system be closed off to them?

Mr Givan: I am sorry, would the Member mind repeating the question? I did not quite get what he was asking.

Mr McMurray: If an exam is taken in year 11, there is an opportunity to resit. In year 12, however, there may not be an opportunity to resit. Is that pathway to progress through the education system therefore closed off?

Mr Givan: If a pupil sits their exams in year 12 but does not get the qualifications that they require in order to progress to A levels, higher education or a vocational course, they can, of course, resit their exams, albeit that may not happen in the school where they sat the exams in year 12. What someone needs to do if they have not passed their exams in year 12 will remain unchanged.

The change is for pupils who sit exams in year 11, when they are maybe only 14 or 15 years of age. At the moment, they are competing with children who sit their exams a year ahead, have had a year more of teaching time and are a year more mature. The awarding bodies' criteria are based on how many people enter those exams and how they perform in those particular tests. That is why so many people in year 11 do not get the grades that they want. In year 12, then, their grades improve significantly, but that is because they are a year older and have had a year more of teaching time. We need to reduce unnecessary exams and the amount of resits that young people are taking, and the best way to improve their outcomes is to give them more time in the class, where they are engaging with the teacher, getting better understanding of the subject matter and getting into more depth, rather than skimming through a very broad curriculum in a particular subject. They will get better outcomes as a result. The proposals that I have announced today — well, they are not proposals; they are now policy — will bring the best outcomes for young people.

Mr McNulty: I fully support any measures that will positively disrupt the education system and allow children to learn, grow and thrive. Your statement was very comprehensive, Minister, but I am concerned that there is no mention of the adverse impact of social media on education, especially relating to mental health. Minister, can you confirm whether you have got agreement on your far-reaching proposals from your colleagues in the Executive?

Mr Givan: I am not sure how social media comes into this. Let me take the last point first. This is not an area that is governed by legislation or statutory regulations; it is subject to policy decisions in my Department. They do not meet the test of being cross-cutting decisions. Members, as we implement this over the next number of years, there will undoubtedly be opportunities for Ministers to engage in it. In due course, I might refer it to the Executive, but it has not been necessary to do that for the contents of today's announcement.

I agree with the Member about the genuine concerns that exist about social media. That is why I moved to provide clear advice to schools, wanting them to prohibit the use of smartphones when pupils are in school between 9.00 am and 3.00 pm. I continue to make that point. Not all schools are following that advice, but they should be. Therefore, I am going to have to look at ways in which we can test that more effectively through the inspectorate's being able to report on the schools that are not following that. I believe that the exposure of social media is hugely detrimental to our young people. There is increasing evidence as to why we need to have effective controls in place.

Mr Buckley: The Minister's statement referred to the impact of generative AI on our education system by and large, but particularly, in this instance, on examinations. Has the Minister had any feedback from school leaders, examination bodies and, indeed, his Department about how, potentially, generative AI has contaminated the examination process?

Mr Givan: My statement referenced the issue of ensuring that coursework and other work that is completed out of school is authentic and represents the ability of the pupil. In a world of AI, where we can generate statements and essays within seconds, that is increasingly a real concern about the authenticity and integrity of that piece of work. The most authentic way of standing over someone's performance is when they are in a controlled assessment centre sitting an examination. That is the most controlled and authentic way to do that. We are retaining elements of assessment in the core subjects that I mentioned in the statement, but the Member highlights a genuine issue with AI. The world has moved on, and we need to ensure that our qualifications and processes recognise that and adapt accordingly.

Mr McReynolds: Minister, the responses to the consultation proposals were clear that teachers do not support a move from linear to modular qualifications. I listened to your response to Mr O'Toole. What do you say to those in the teaching profession who feel that you are ignoring their opinions by moving forward with these proposals?

Mr Givan: The response was not as the Member has just outlined. I indicated to Mr Burrows that a wide range of views came from the consultation process. Teachers had stronger views on some issues than parents or pupils, and vice versa. My job is to reflect on those consultation responses and allow them to inform, ultimately, the decision-making process. What I have outlined today is a balanced approach. It does take on board concerns that were being raised, and I have reflected that in the policy position that has now been adopted on qualifications.

Mr Durkan: I welcome the Minister's recognition and acknowledgement of the impact that exams have on the mental health and well-being of young people, but I do not know how he reconciles that with his stout defence of the transfer test. Where else thinks that testing children at the age of 10 or 11 is good?

What are the financial implications of your proposals for the Department, Minister? How much money will they save, and has that been a factor in your decision?

Mr Givan: The last time that there was a review of qualifications was in 2015, so, obviously, this is long overdue. It is necessary in order to have an updated qualification process in place. The cost is £15 million over the next number of years. Year 1 spend will be £2·7 million. It is important that we support CCEA, which is the organisation that will take that forward. It has welcomed the announcement today and is supportive of the policy position that I have now adopted. That is the quantum of funding that is involved over quite a number of years, but the year 1 spend will be £2·7 million.

Mr Gaston: Minister, I want to focus on the changes to GCSEs. I support continuing with the modular approach for maths, English and double award science to ensure that resits are available in year 12 for those core subjects if required. By aligning the rest of the GCSE subjects with a linear approach, do you have any concern that more children will leave school without the qualifications that they need and that more children will be driven to resit in further educational colleges the exams that they failed because it is a linear approach for GCSEs?

Mr Givan: Retaining modularity in the subjects that the Member outlined will reduce the scale of change for schools and the anxiety around changing those key gateway qualifications, which are required to progress to the next level of education or training, rather than evidence that modular approaches impact on overall outcomes.

I do not share the other concerns that the Member highlighted. I encourage Members to look at the data: look at the number of young people who sit GCSEs in year 11 and fail the exams, and then resit them a year later and get a much improved qualification. That is not as a result of their having failed them a year earlier and somehow deciding that they were going to perform better. It is because they had a full year of being able to be in the classroom and being taught more about the subject matter by the teacher. That then had a positive impact on their outcomes.

Entering young people for qualifications in year 11 disadvantages those who do not get the same support maybe at home or through other provision. It also disadvantages children who have additional needs. Educational psychologists will tell you that, in entering children for those qualifications too early, they are not ready and have not been given sufficient support and that the outcome is therefore going to one where they do not pass the exams. That is not a position that we should stand over, because I do not see how that is beneficial to young people's anxiety, stress and mental health. This is a much better way to achieve better outcomes for young people.

Mr Sheehan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister, in his statement and responses, made a big play of the anxiety and mental health issues that face children as they are going towards exams. I specifically asked him, as did a number of other Members, about the anxiety that is experienced by 10- and 11-year-olds as they are facing into high-stakes exams. The Minister did not answer any of the Members who posed that question to him. Is it in order for the Minister to do that?

Mr Speaker: You have made your point. I do not think that it is a point of order.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to update Members on the actions that my Department is taking to strengthen regulation of and enforcement on waste water pollution.

Our rivers, lakes and loughs face mounting and unacceptable pressures. Only 29% of our surface water bodies now achieve good ecological status: a deterioration from 2011. Northern Ireland Water has reported that more than 20 million tons of untreated sewage and waste water spill into our waterways every year, with storm overflows discharging over 24,500 times annually. That is wrong and has real consequences, including three successive summers of blue-green algae blooms in Lough Neagh, alongside the deeply concerning and deteriorating position in Belfast lough and elsewhere; an increased risk to drinking water quality, as water treatment processes are challenged by the poor water quality that the drinking water sources provide, including Lough Neagh, which provides 40% of our drinking water; the cancellation of water-based sport and recreation owing to poor water quality; walkers and swimmers facing regular pollution events and beach closures; and the contamination of Belfast lough, which is damaging the shellfish water protected area (SWPA), thus reducing the quality and market value of local shellfish.

Waste water pollution is clearly not just an environmental issue. It affects public health, livelihoods, the economy and the confidence that people have in the safety of the waters that they use. To rebuild public confidence, we must strengthen regulation of, and enforcement powers for, waste water pollution by making eight key interventions: legislating for stronger fines and penalties; reviewing the sentences that are handed down for environmental crimes; ending the bye ball given to Northern Ireland Water; stepping in to make a special designation for Belfast lough; reviewing standards and putting in place new ones for discharge consents; improving the monitoring and reporting of Northern Ireland Water's activities; clarifying the impact of price control 21 (PC21) being underfunded; and, importantly, setting up an independent environmental protection agency.

First, we must strengthen fines and penalties. I intend to introduce a fisheries and water environment Bill in May to modernise enforcement powers by increasing the maximum fine for water pollution to £50,000 and introducing the ability to issue fixed penalty notices.

Secondly, we need to review the sentences for environmental offences. The Department of Justice's planned sentencing review will include environmental offences. It will identify proposals to strengthen the sentencing framework to ensure that it continues to be effective and proportionate.

Thirdly, we need to end the licence to pollute that Northern Ireland Water has been granted since its foundation in 2007, in the form of the statement of regulatory principles and intent (SORPI). Anything that we do must be fair, impartial, proportionate and applied consistently across all sectors: public bodies, agriculture, private businesses and industry. Members will be aware that I have consistently signalled my intent for the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) to withdraw from SORPI, which, as I said, is an administrative arrangement with Northern Ireland Water that was established in 2007. Back then, it was recognised that there was a deficit in the inherited waste water infrastructure that would take time to be upgraded over a series of price control periods. Almost 20 years on, there remains an unacceptable level of waste water pollution.

For my Department to deliver on its statutory duties and to respond effectively to present water quality challenges, it needs to ensure that regulation is delivered in compliance with the law and that effective enforcement is applied consistently across all sectors that cause pollution. Crucially, achieving parity requires ending outdated arrangements. It is my view that withdrawing from SORPI will deliver regulatory parity, with Northern Ireland Water then being regulated on the same basis as other industries, including agriculture. Such a step will drive environmental improvements and outcomes that support the delivery of the environmental improvement plan, which, given the scale of the nutrient pressures that waste water infrastructure is causing, is particularly important.

The independent review of environmental governance in Northern Ireland recommended exiting SORPI, finding:

That is why I am seeking support from my Executive colleagues for my proposal to withdraw from SORPI and ensure that there is a level regulatory playing field for all organisations and individuals impacting on our water environment. It is neither right nor fair that anybody should be given a licence to pollute. The Drinking Water Inspectorate left in 2012; the Utility Regulator withdrew last year; now is the time for the Northern Ireland Environment Agency to depart. I look forward to early Executive engagement on the matter to help us all move forward towards improvements in water quality in Lough Neagh, in Lough Erne, in Belfast lough and across Northern Ireland.

Fourthly, turning to my specific actions to protect Belfast lough, I am seeking Executive agreement to designate the shellfish water protected area as a sensitive area under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations (Northern Ireland). That will require enhanced treatment for waste water discharges entering the lough.

Fifthly, we need to review and put in place new standards for discharge consents. We currently have approximately 150,000 discharge consents: approximately 850 relating to waste water works; 320 relating to waste water collection systems; 6,000 relating to industrial or private processes; and 142,830 relating to domestic properties. Those reviews will result in new conditions being included in consents for new parameters that may result in more stringent standards than previously applied. In some cases, the changes may result in refusal to consent to discharge. That will be tough, but it has to be done.

Sixthly, people need to know more about what Northern Ireland Water is discharging and when in order to improve compliance performance, reporting and accountability. We are working with Northern Ireland Water on those measures, but let me be clear, as Minister: the pace of delivery needs to pick up. To provide reliable, real-time evidence of the performance of waste water networks, Northern Ireland Water is rolling out an installation programme for event duration monitors (EDMs) on combined sewer overflows and pumping stations across its waste water network, with a priority to install them near to bathing waters and shellfish protected waters. Those monitors report the frequency and duration of storm overflows or spills. The data will improve operational intelligence and enable prioritisation of pollution risks to be targeted for investment to yield water quality improvements and build public confidence. A pilot to deliver near real-time reporting from EDMs has also been initiated at a small number of bathing water sites, with a view to wider roll-out thereafter.

Work is ongoing by NIEA to introduce unannounced sampling of waste water treatment works within the next 12 months, bringing Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the UK. A pilot carried out between 2020 and 2024 showed significant differences between announced and unannounced results, confirming the need for the change. As unannounced sampling will provide a more accurate picture of operational performance, it is expected that reported compliance levels will fall initially, reflecting the true condition of assets and strengthening the evidence base for regulatory intervention and investment planning.

Waste water flow is a critical factor in understanding the performance capacity and environmental impact of any waste water system. My Department will soon publish new guidance on monitoring waste water flow. In addition, work has started on a number of flow pilot assessments, as current reporting does not reflect the flow performance of the sewer network or treatment plants. Accurate waste water flow measurement will provide the data needed for targeted investment, effective regulation and long-term environmental protection.

Seventhly, I need to clarify my Department's position on the no-detriment principle, also referred to as the zero-detriment policy, in relation to Northern Ireland Water's ability to support new development. In August 2021, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency agreed to apply that principle as an interim measure for a development in Limavady. It was intended to facilitate short-term development, but Northern Ireland Water delivered specific capital improvement schemes set out in price control 21, which was, at that time, fully funded. That approach was always conditional on those schemes being progressed within the price control period, and was subject to ongoing review.

However, with the passage of time, the interim arrangement, which was designed to be temporary, is no longer appropriate. PC21 is no longer fully funded. My Department does not support continued reliance on the "no detriment" principle as a mechanism to enable waste water capacity for new connections.

Finally, we need an independent environmental regulator, free from political interference and able to get on with the job of protecting our environment. It is not right that we are the only part of the UK and Ireland without an independent environmental protection agency. The independent panel set out the case, as part of the ‘Independent Review of Environmental Governance in Northern Ireland’ report. I am gutted that it has not been permitted to proceed.

Alongside all of the actions I have set out today, we are also planning a new public awareness-raising campaign in the spring on how to best manage your septic tank. The campaign will get the message out before the powers come in to issue fixed penalty notices for low-severity, intermittent pollution that can come from septic tanks if they are not properly managed.

The state of our waterways requires real change, including how we regulate and enforce waste water pollution. I remain committed to working constructively on those important matters with the Infrastructure Minister, Executive colleagues, public bodies and all stakeholders to support effective delivery. Some reforms, particularly stronger nutrient discharge standards, will be challenging for stakeholders. I acknowledge that, but we cannot allow the situation in our rivers, lakes and loughs to deteriorate any more. By strengthening the regulatory framework, improving compliance and enforcing it, we can achieve our aim, which is good, clean water.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Before I call Members, there are 18 people are on the list to speak. We have an hour to get through the questions, so can you keep your questions sharp and focused on the Minister's statement?

Mr Durkan: I welcome the Minister's aim and, in principle, the actions proposed in his statement. We would need a bit more detail on the sliding scale of penalty notices, but any efforts to address failing water quality are to be welcomed. However, much of what you have outlined today, Minister, such as withdrawal from SORPI, the designation of Belfast lough as a sensitive area, PC21 funding and the establishment of an independent EPA, requires Executive agreement, cross-departmental action and investment. How much of the eight-point plan has full Executive backing? Will much of it, like the proposal for the independent environmental protection agency, be blocked at the Executive?

Mr Muir: Thank you for your constructive tone, Mark. This is a collective challenge for everyone in Northern Ireland, and it is an important moment for us to take the decisions. The fisheries and water environment Bill will come to this place, I hope, in May, and it will set out a bit more about the sliding penalty scales, and a scrutiny process will be available. A number of the actions that I have set out are already under way, particularly the waste water regulatory reform programme, so we can have a better picture of what Northern Ireland Water is doing. I have already communicated to the Infrastructure Minister my decision about no detriment. Other items require Executive approval, and I will continue to work with the Executive on that.

There is a need for reform of these institutions, so that we can respect the will of the Chamber on the independent environmental protection agency, expressed in November of last year. It is not right or democratic that it cannot progress because one party does not agree with it, and that is why there is a duty on the UK Government to lead a process of reform.

Mr Butler (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I thank the Minister for bringing this work forward. I assure the Minister that the Committee will be interested in scrutinising it as it goes forward.

Minister, you have announced wider enforcement powers and fixed penalty notices, including for septic tanks. What specific safeguards do you envisage putting in place, for instance, for households that may be entirely unaware that their septic tank is causing intermittent or low-severity pollution, particularly in rural areas where septic tanks are, perhaps, old and not functioning as they should?

Mr Muir: Our focus on all water pollution issues is based on the four pillars, which are education, incentivisation, regulation and enforcement, and the same applies to septic tanks. That is why we will start a public awareness campaign in the spring on how people can best manage their septic tank. Many people do that, which is good, but some people need to be further reminded of their duties. We need powers to deal with people whose tanks discharge into and pollute the river so that we can be more agile. That would be a low-severity discharge for which we can issue a fixed penalty notice, but let us hope that we do not get there. Let us raise awareness of the issue so that people understand how to better manage their septic tank. As Minister, I make it clear that we need to deal with all forms of pollution fairly and equitably.

Ms Finnegan: Minister, your statement referenced nutrient pressures from waste water infrastructure. Will you clarify the proportion of nutrient-loading attributes in waste water compared with other sources and how parity on that will be ensured?

Mr Muir: The Member will be aware that studies are available on that matter. The report of the RePhoKus study came from the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) in 2020, and a copy of the NEW Harmonica study report is in the Assembly Library, where I lodged it last year.

I will say one thing: we can get into percentages and who causes what, who is to blame and all the rest of it, but we have a problem, and it is embodied in Lough Neagh, which has been green for the past three summers. We need to move on from saying, "I'm not going to do something until someone else does something". We need to come together and collectively use this as a moment to say that the waste water pollution that is occurring is wrong and that we need stronger regulation and enforcement. I think that I see a collective will to do that, and I hope that we can.

Miss McIlveen: Farmers will welcome the fact that, two years on, the Minister is focusing attention on Northern Ireland Water. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of the measures that he has announced on current Northern Ireland Water consents and future planning applications in the absence of a credible funded alternative to SORPI?

Mr Muir: It is for Northern Ireland Water and the Department for Infrastructure to respond on much of that. I cannot prejudge, for example, what fines the court might hand out. I am conscious that I have legal responsibilities, and I need to make sure that I discharge them. Alongside that, there is a need for investment in waste water infrastructure. I have been clear that I will support the Minister for Infrastructure in her work on that. However, we need to have an honest conversation on the issue in the Chamber and with the public. PC21 is underfunded, and that impacts on our water environment.

Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for his statement and for his determination that Northern Ireland must do better on water quality. Further to that, how will the proposals and actions outlined in his statement support existing commitments in the Programme for Government and the environmental improvement plan?

Mr Muir: Thank you, John. I have come here today to set out what we are doing on waste water pollution not just because of legal requirements but because the Programme for Government has a core commitment to:

and the first strategic environmental outcome in the environmental improvement plan, which was published in September 2024, is:

It is important that we take those commitments seriously and deliver on them. I look forward to support from my Executive colleagues on what I have set out today.

Ms Murphy: Minister, you will be aware that NIEA officials briefed the Committee a number of weeks ago and that the issue of staffing arose during that meeting. In that vein, will the NIEA have the appropriate staffing and, indeed, resources to meet the need that may come with a rise in enforcement?

Mr Muir: Thank you. I need two things, the first of which is funding as part of the Budget settlement. We know what the draft Budget sets out for my Department, and it makes for pretty grim reading. We also need resource — people in post. It is no secret that my Department is carrying over 800 vacancies, approximately 200 of which are in the Northern Ireland Environment Agency. That impacts on the issues that Members contact me about, such as response times to planning consultations. I continue to work with officials on that issue.

There is a wider issue with recruitment into the Northern Ireland Civil Service. We know that the Northern Ireland Audit Office report entitled 'Leading and Resourcing the Northern Ireland Civil Service', which was published in January, stated that the average time frame for recruitment was seven months. We need to get quicker at recruiting people into positions so that we can do this. I have to prioritise. I get lots of letters and questions from Members asking me to do this and do that. I have to prioritise our statutory obligations, which is what I am doing today.

Mr Buckley: We are right to focus our attention on NI Water's pollution of our waterways, but let us be honest: there are blatant double standards, and the statement does not create a level playing field. The double fining of farmers, for example, which was introduced by the Minister, means that they will be penalised twice in comparison with NI Water.

Whilst we are on the topic of double standards, Minister, I am sure that you are aware of a news report over the weekend that showed injured animals, slurry being blown over hedges and flooded slurry yards at one of your arm's-length bodies, AFBI. Minister, why are the rules for you and your Department different from those for farmers?

Mr Muir: I totally and utterly refute that. You seem to have a selective memory about what your predecessors did as Agriculture Ministers: they introduced a lot of the stuff that you now criticise me for. You have a selective memory in that regard.

My Department takes the allegations about AFBI at Hillsborough extremely seriously. It promptly initiated inspections of the site after the allegations were first raised by a journalist in October. An animal welfare inspection by my veterinary science and animal health group identified no major concerns. An inspection by the Northern Ireland Environment Agency found a low-severity pollution incident regarding sewage fungus in a waterway below the farm that AFBI has taken action to address. Ongoing monitoring continues. I was reassured by the findings of the inspections undertaken by my officials. AFBI has also confirmed that an independent inspection of the site by Red Tractor, which provides accreditation for farm standards, has been carried out at AFBI's request, with accreditation status maintained. AFBI will continue to work to ensure that regulations designed to protect animal health and welfare, water quality and the environment are adhered to.

One last thing: I saw your commentary in the media at the weekend, and some of the comments that you made about civil servants were disgraceful.

Mr Mathison: Has the Minister had the opportunity to watch the Channel 4 documentary 'Dirty Business'? If so, what were his key takeaways from it?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Nick. I have had the opportunity to watch it. The first takeaway was the need for stronger regulation of the water industry. That drama-documentary makes it clear that we need to make sure that we are focused on the proper regulation of our water industry. That is something that I am seeking to do.

The second takeaway — I will be open about this — was that it revalidated my position in opposing the privatisation of our water services. We have seen the consequences of that in England, and we should never allow that to occur in Northern Ireland.

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

I welcome the Minister's statement.

Minister, recent figures show that, in the last quarter of 2025, new house starts were at their highest level since 2018 and that the construction sector has hit a 15-year high, outperforming Britain. To ensure that we do not lose that momentum and to protect the growth of our economy, will the Minister commit himself to a phased approach to removing SORPI so that there is not an immediate impact on housebuilding?

Mr Muir: I will engage with the Infrastructure Minister on that in person rather than through the Chamber. I will also take action to ensure that we do not see the death of Lough Neagh or see Belfast lough going the same way. We have responsibilities to our environment that I take very seriously. We all need to live up to them.

Mr K Buchanan: Last week, my colleagues on Mid Ulster District Council heard a representative from NI Water state as fact that 70% of water pollution originates from agriculture. We are not going to get into the 70/62 debate about figures. You said in your statement that more than 20 million tons of untreated sewage goes into waterways every year. If you do the calculation of what Lough Neagh holds and put in 20 million tons of sewage, you work out that it would not take that many years to fill it.

As Agriculture and Environment Minister, will you defend farmers against factually incorrect information?

Mr Muir: I was very disappointed to see that statement being issued. It is factually incorrect. I know that farmers do good work and that they are committed to improving water quality, for which I commend them. Northern Ireland Water has a role to play here. I have set out the actions that I will seek to take. The support of the Chamber and the Executive will be fundamental for me to ensure that we have stronger regulation and enforcement against waste water pollution. The situation is unacceptable, and we need support so that we can strengthen that regulatory regime.

Mr Chambers: Minister, I note that you identified the potential damage to the shellfish industry in Belfast lough from pollution. I think that you and I are on the same page: the threats to Belfast lough go a lot deeper than just that issue. Indeed, last year, you agreed with me that Belfast lough has the potential to be the next Lough Neagh if something is not done.

I note from your fourth proposal that you will seek the support of Executive colleagues to enhance the treatment for waste water discharges that enter the lough. Are you confident that you will get that support, given that the Executive have shown no enthusiasm to date to do so?

Mr Muir: That was something that my predecessor looked at. His party withdrew from the Executive, so it was not progressed. I have taken it back to the Executive. I hope that everyone has a shared commitment to improving water quality and will support us on that.

The fact that the programme of upgrades around Belfast lough has been paused and is not being progressed is a serious concern for me. That is playing out through the impact on people not just in North Down but in Belfast, South Antrim and other constituencies, so it is important that we take action. I will hopefully get agreement on it, because we have a legal responsibility to look after our waterways.

Mr Wilson: Thank you, Minister. You will agree that farmers have been, wrongly, in the firing line for the majority of the directed heat around water pollution. I am now concerned that rural households may be in the firing line, and I note with concern your comments about domestic septic tanks. What exactly are you proposing on septic tank consents, and will your proposals be retrospective?

Mr Muir: They will not be retrospective. To be clear, I am agnostic on the causes of pollution. What I am trying to do is address pollution. The best way to do that is through education and incentives so that it does not occur in the first place. That is why we are doing a public awareness-raising campaign on how to best manage your septic tank. We will work with people on that.

There is an issue with our powers in that, if there is a low-severity discharge, we do not bring that forward for prosecution, and we do not refer it to the Public Prosecution Service (PPS). We need to have more agile powers and the ability to issue fixed penalty notices. That will come forward as part of the fisheries and water environment Bill, which the Committee and the Assembly will scrutinise. We can tease out the issues then. We need to have the ability to issue fixed penalty notices. I do not want to get into the business of issuing such notices. Let us hope that, by raising awareness of the issue, we do not have to do that in the first place. We all have a role to play.

When I come out of the Chamber, I get pulled from all sides and am told, "Don't do this", "Don't do that" and "Don't annoy anyone else". We have to deal with all the causes of pollution, because our waterways are collapsing. Forty per cent of our drinking water comes from Lough Neagh. In 2024 and 2023, there was an issue with that drinking water's taste and odour. There are real issues that we have to face, and I am trying to do that in a proportional, pragmatic, fair and balanced way.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for his statement, which I welcome. According to NI Water, one of the worst-affected waste water infrastructure sites is in my North Belfast constituency. When that overflows, a mix of rainwater and untreated sewage often flows into Belfast lough. I therefore ask the Minister for an update on the investigation by the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) of discharge consents for Belfast lough.

Mr Muir: Thank you, Nuala. The Office for Environmental Protection's investigation of the Department for Infrastructure, the Utility Regulator and DAERA is, sadly, not unexpected. I previously warned of the immense and unsustainable pressure being put on Belfast lough as a result of decades of pollution. Belfast lough is a water body that is much loved by the communities who live beside it. It is also an essential habitat for local wildlife. Significant and sustained action is needed in order to reverse the damage that has been done and to see the necessary water quality improvement.

As I set out earlier, we have approximately 150,000 discharge consents across Northern Ireland. They need to be reviewed, especially when the waterbody is failing to meet its water quality objectives or if it is close to, or in, a special area of conservation (SAC). An action plan is therefore being developed for implementation in the next few months. Given the Belfast lough designations and the sensitivity involved, direct discharges will likely be prioritised for review. I will set out the implications of doing that. It is likely that the standards for some consents to discharge will become more stringent, which will reflect the need to protect water quality and ecological integrity. Doing that will be resource-intensive, and it will expose the need for Northern Ireland Water to upgrade its infrastructure. When we review direct discharges and set the new standards, enforcement action will be taken if those standards are not met. If SORPI is removed, prosecutions will follow, and rightly so, because we are seeing pollution in Belfast lough and other waterways. Polluting is happening with impunity, which is wrong.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister for his statement. Our waste water infrastructure and treatment works are crumbling and inadequate. That has resulted in the stalling of housebuilding and led to major pollution incidents, with 20 million tons of raw sewage being released into our waterways annually. To what degree is the Minister confident that the Minister for Infrastructure's three-pronged approach will help us get to grips with the issue?

Mr Muir: It is not for me to comment on the performance of another Minister. Rather, it is for you to scrutinise that Minister's performance. I have to be confident that we have proper regulation and enforcement powers in place that meet our legal requirements and that will turn around the conditions of those waterbodies. That is what I am setting out today.

Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for his statement. As he knows, open-water swimming is a popular pastime for many of our constituents. Raw sewage spills of harmful bacteria are now well beyond legal limits, however. What level of engagement has he had with the Infrastructure Minister on tackling that pollution in Belfast lough and across the north Down coastline, and how frequent is that engagement?

Mr Muir: I engage regularly with the Infrastructure Minister on that and other issues. I recognise the importance of our bathing sites. They are popular. My Department has been undertaking testing at designated sites and reporting on their findings. We are looking forward to doing further work on our bathing sites, reflecting their importance to local communities.

Mr McReynolds: Minister, why is the installation of event duration monitors and more real-time reporting being prioritised at bathing sites?

Mr Muir: That is a key ask from many people, including Surfers Against Sewage, which is rightly calling for the full monitoring of sewage discharges and for real-time alerts. People deserve to know where spills have occurred before they consider swimming. It is incumbent on Northern Ireland Water to push ahead with the roll-out of all EDMs without delay.

Mr Stewart: I thank the Minister for his statement. I do not need to tell him that Belfast lough is in an absolutely disgraceful state, as he has mentioned it many times today. It is having an impact on our sea life , on those who sea-swim and on those who use the sea for other sporting activities, particularly in my East Antrim constituency. You have stated your intention to designate the Belfast lough shellfish water protected area as a sensitive area under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2007. Will you give a clear time frame for doing that? What additional treatment standards will be required for the waste water discharges that are affecting the east Antrim coastline?

Mr Muir: Under the regulations, it is a statutory responsibility for my Department to set out measures to reduce the pollution of freshwater and coastal waters from domestic sewage and industrial waste water. The identification of the Belfast lough shellfish water protected area as a sensitive area under the regulations is vital, because we need to reverse the downward trend in water quality in Belfast lough. Once the Executive support me in making the identification, waste water treatment works discharging into the sensitive area and its catchment will be required to provide enhanced treatment of waste water. Over time, that should help achieve the environmental objectives for the shellfish water protected area. The full cost of meeting those objectives is a matter on which we will continue to engage with the Department for Infrastructure.

Mr McMurray: Thank you, Minister. Will you give us an update on your plans for our bathing waters?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Andy. We have taken a number of actions. A dashboard has been launched to monitor water quality at all 33 designated bathing sites in Northern Ireland, which will help the public choose when and where to swim. Currently, the bathing season runs from 1 June until 15 September each year. Responses to the last bathing water review indicated public support for an extension to the season, and I know people who swim all year round. Given the potential for significant change to the policy, my Department has been sampling outside the bathing season to inform future policy direction. I also recently committed to a new bathing waters policy review for Northern Ireland, which will commence shortly. The length of the bathing season will be considered as part of that review.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, this is clearly the most urgent and grave priority facing the Executive; we agree with you on that. You have repeatedly said that certain parties are blocking progress in the Executive, which is why we have said that you and your party should perhaps have asked for specific guarantees up front. Given that we have just heard from Minister Givan about all the things that he is doing, without Executive approval, to change exams in Northern Ireland, are there measures that you can take, which you are not yet taking, that do not require Executive approval?

Mr Muir: I do not know whether you are aware of the rules for Executive referral, but, if an issue is significant, controversial or cross-cutting, Executive referral is required. We are very conscious of the Islandmagee gas caverns judgement and the precedent that it set, and I take that into account when considering whether to refer matters to the Executive. I will not go through the decisions of other Ministers or discuss what they have been doing; that is, perhaps, for you to scrutinise. When I seek Executive approval, I engage with my Executive colleagues. The Alliance Party has consistently, long before the SDLP decided to jump on the bandwagon, supported reform of the institutions. We will continue to do that and will call for the UK Government to lead that process.

Ms Egan: Minister, I share your concerns about the volume of untreated sewage that is being discharged into Belfast lough and the impact that it has on the north Down coastline and our constituents. Therefore, could you please outline why the special designation is required for Belfast lough?

Mr Muir: The state of that shellfish water protected area is a clear demonstration of why the designation is needed. We are seeing the deterioration of that area. It is important that we intervene and make that designation.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I have one other name on my list. Do any other Members want to ask a question? Yes: thank you, Mr Gaston; I thought that that might be the case.

Mr McGrath: There is so much sea swimming in my constituency. In what way might these updates help in the year ahead? There are still concerns that some of the water quality is not great. Given that Carlingford lough has a North/South element, do any of the Minister's suggestions require interactions with Dublin?

Mr Muir: I will make an announcement on Friday about water quality in Carlingford lough. That is part of the PEACE PLUS initiative, and that is positive. With some of the interventions that we are seeking to take, it will take time to turn water quality around. We need to be conscious of that. Alongside that, we need to have better reporting and monitoring of bathing water sites and set out which ones have already been designated. That information is available on the DAERA website. There is also a plan to review that.

Mr Gaston: Minister, I agree with the line in your statement that reads:

For far too long — for nearly two decades — your Department has operated a two-tier system that has allowed Northern Ireland Water to do what it wants. Closer to home, Minister, do you have any comment on the allegation that AFBI has been causing pollution in Hillsborough Forest by blowing slurry and Bovaer milk into it from a slurry tanker? Will you agree to meet the journalist Dougie Beattie, who has raised those concerns, or will you continue to hide and shy away from scrutiny on that issue?

Mr Muir: I am not hiding; I am here, OK? I am here answering questions. I do not know whether the Member was in the Chamber earlier, but that point was raised and I responded to it. There is a trend in this place of Members asking the same question again and again when it has already been answered.

Mr Gaston: This is about Hillsborough Forest.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Gaston, you know the rules. Stop barking from your seat.

Mr Muir: In relation to meeting GB News, I will meet serious journalists. GB News is neither. [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Everybody, calm down. That concludes questions on the statement. Members may take their ease while we hand over at the Top Table.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): I beg to introduce the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill [NIA 26/22-27], which is a Bill to make provision about the exercise of the court’s discretion when sentencing; to make provision about the availability and effect of suspended sentence orders; to create general principles relating to the determination of tariffs where a court is required to pass a life sentence on an adult; to provide for the review of certain sentences by superior courts; to make provision about the effect of an offender convicted of murder or manslaughter failing to disclose information about the victim’s remains; to create an offence of assaulting a public worker; to create sentencing aggravations concerning offences against public workers, particular groups and vulnerable victims; to amend the law relating to penalties for certain road traffic offences; and to make provision for connected purposes.

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

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

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

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate.

Mr Lyons: The Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on 8 January. The Bill makes provision to remove that policy. The change will increase the amount of support available to families on universal credit (UC) with three or more children and aims to reduce the number of children living in poverty. It was a key ask in the draft anti-poverty strategy and was universally welcomed across the House.

The Bill is moving at pace through Parliament and is expected to complete its legislative stages on 12 March. Due to the compressed timescales to implement the reform from 6 April and to ensure that claimants here are not financially disadvantaged, I seek the Assembly's endorsement of a legislative consent motion (LCM) for provisions in the Bill to extend to Northern Ireland. It is a single-issue Bill, and I will briefly discuss the relevant provisions that it is proposed will extend to Northern Ireland.

Clause 2 does several things. First and foremost, it removes the two-child limit from article 15 of the Welfare Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 2015. Clause 2 also carries out a number of technical functions that stem from the removal of the limit.

Clause 3 sets out the territorial extent of the provisions and specifies a date for the Bill's coming into operation. It also provides a delegated power to the Department for Communities to make transitional or saving provisions in relation to clause 2, ensuring that the Department for Communities can provide for the smooth commencement of the new legislation and address any unforeseen issues in the implementation of the Bill's policy.

As of November 2025, 13,700 households in Northern Ireland were impacted on by the two-child policy. In those impacted households, there were 47,690 children, 17,450 of whom were not eligible for the child element of universal credit. With the removal of the two-child limit, those families can expect to see their UC entitlement increase by approximately £3,650 per year for each additional child. The removal of the restriction will lead to more children being eligible for the child element of universal credit, so there will be a consequential impact on Treasury-funded annually managed expenditure (AME), which is estimated at £59·6 million of additional expenditure in Northern Ireland for 2026-27.

The removal of the limit means that more families will be impacted on by the benefit cap. My Department currently mitigates the benefit cap for families through welfare supplementary payments, which are paid automatically in order to offset the amount of benefit that is lost due to the cap. That means that the cost of providing the welfare mitigation scheme, which is funded through the Executive's departmental expenditure limit (DEL) budget, will increase. That is estimated to cost £9·4 million for 2026-27. The additional funding for the mitigation scheme will require Executive consideration as part of the 2026 to 2029-2030 multi-year Budget exercise. My officials are working on messaging and will communicate the changes to claimants through a range of well-established channels, including bespoke journal messages and nidirect.

When it comes to the LCM, I am aware of the importance of the Assembly's role in considering legislation and of the scrutiny role of the Committee for Communities in particular. Whilst the use of the LCM process is not my preferred approach, by agreeing to the motion on the Bill, we can ensure that UC claimants in Northern Ireland receive the same welfare entitlements as their counterparts in Great Britain at the same time, and we will take an important step forward in helping to reduce child poverty in Northern Ireland. That is an outcome that we all, undoubtedly, wish to see.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): I thank the Minister for his remarks. The Committee for Communities undertook its scrutiny of the LCM over the 15 days afforded to Committees under Standing Order 42A(7). We immediately sought oral and written evidence from key stakeholders, including Advice NI, the Law Centre NI, the Cliff Edge Coalition and the NI Commissioner for Children and Young People. Departmental officials also provided an oral briefing to the Committee. Following that scrutiny, the Committee published its report, which has been laid in the Business Office and the Assembly Library and is available to all Members.

I state clearly at the outset that, having completed that work, the Committee for Communities is content to support the legislative consent motion, recognising that its provisions will make a real and positive difference to many families and children who live in poverty. The Committee is strongly of the opinion that legislation on devolved matters should originate in the Assembly. In this instance, however, the Committee accepts the Department's rationale for using a legislative consent motion, which, as the Minister has set out, is that it is a necessary mechanism to maintain welfare parity with Britain and ensure that families in the North benefit from the removal of the two-child limit at the same time as elsewhere. The Bill makes corresponding amendments to existing welfare legislation, and using an LCM avoids delay, duplication and the risk of disadvantage to children and families here. The legislation is a single-topic Bill, and time is clearly of the essence. It was introduced with speed at Westminster on 8 January 2026, progressing through the Commons between 3 February and 23 February. It is currently scheduled for both its Second Reading and Committee Stage in the House of Lords on 12 March.

For the North, the legislative consent motion seeks the Assembly's agreement to extend clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill to what are transferred matters here, enabling corresponding amendments to the Welfare Reform (NI) Order 2015, the Welfare Reform and Work (NI) Order 2016 and the Universal Credit Regulations (NI) 2016. The effect of those provisions is that all children or qualifying young people in a household will be included in the universal credit calculation, with implementation from 6 April 2026.

In our scrutiny, we heard from stakeholders who said that the North is disproportionately affected by the two-child limit. Stakeholders emphasised that the removal of the limit has the potential to significantly reduce child poverty and improve household incomes for families most in need. Evidence from Cliff Edge Coalition members and the Law Centre noted that around 45,000 children in the North have been affected by that policy, and stakeholders strongly supported the Assembly's providing legislative consent to avoid adverse impacts on children. The Committee received an assurance from departmental officials that the additional child element is expected to be applied automatically to existing universal credit claimants, avoiding the need for new claims or further delays in payment. In addition, the Department indicated that the equality impact assessment remains ongoing and will be provided to the Committee when completed.

While welcoming the policy change, stakeholders consistently raised practical issues and concerns that will need to be managed, including interaction with the benefit cap and the need for adequate welfare mitigations; the position of claimants receiving transitional protection, particularly those undergoing managed migration; and the absence of specific provisions in the Bill to address that issue. Evidence suggests that some families may not immediately benefit from the policy change, and additional consideration may need to be given to that matter, to the timing of assessment periods, to the absence of backdating and to the importance of clear and proactive communication with claimants. The Minister has spoken to that. Concerns were also raised about the sustainability of welfare mitigation payments beyond March 2028, and the importance of providing long-term certainty in that area was emphasised. Stakeholders also highlighted the potential for increased pressure on advice services as claimants seek guidance following implementation.

Overall, the Committee for Communities fully supports the legislative consent motion, based on the evidence received. We are clear that the changes will deliver tangible benefits for families living in the North. The Committee is satisfied that the LCM is the appropriate and necessary mechanism to ensure parity with Britain and to secure timely access to the support for those who need it most.

I will make a couple of brief remarks in my role as Sinn Féin spokesperson for communities, and I start off by warmly welcoming the decision to scrap the two-child limit. Sinn Féin has been consistently opposed to the two-child limit ever since it was introduced in 2017. It was our view at the time that the policy was nothing but a cruel and shameful attack on the most vulnerable people in our society and that it would inevitably lead to many more people falling into poverty and deprivation. Unfortunately, in the years since, that analysis has been proven right, and we have seen more and more families struggling to survive and having to resort to using food banks. Today represents a great victory for all the people who have campaigned hard over so many years, and I place on record my sincere thanks for the crucial role that they played in persuading the British Government to finally do the right thing.

To conclude, while the development is an important piece of the jigsaw in tackling poverty, there are other things that need to be progressed alongside the removal of the two-child limit. In particular, we need to see an anti-poverty strategy, significantly strengthened compared to that which was consulted on last year, brought to the Executive by the Minister for Communities. It will require an ambitious plan, with meaningful targets and outcomes, to move the dial towards reducing poverty.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: As Members will know, the Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm. I propose therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The debate will continue after Question Time, when the next Member to be called will be Mark Durkan.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Question 15 has been withdrawn.

Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): On 25 February 2025, I was pleased to announce the next steps for the Belfast Rapid Transit 2 (BRT2) project, which will see the implementation of that innovative service across the north and south of the city, bringing the benefits already established by the Glider service to communities living along the route.

The outline business case for the project was submitted to the Department of Finance on 25 November last year and approved on 22 December 2025. Whilst a significant funding shortfall remains to deliver the full scheme, I am grateful that the funding envelope of £35 million from our Belfast region city deal partners, along with £13 million that I have committed from my Department's budget, will allow the commencement of the phased delivery of the project and lay good foundations for future development as we seek to address the funding shortfall that would permit delivery of the full BRT2 project

In this early phase, I plan to deliver the extension of the existing Glider 2 (G2) service, providing linkages to Queen's University and Belfast City Hospital; infrastructure works on the southern route as far as Park Road; infrastructure works on the northern route as far as Innisfayle Park; and the delivery of the proposed park-and-ride facility at O'Neill Road.

As part of my continued commitment to sustainability, I plan to purchase four electric Glider vehicles to be tested as a pilot scheme on the heavily utilised east-west G1 route. The outworkings of the pilot will be used to determine the practicality of the roll-out of those sustainable vehicles for BRT2 as well as future Glider routes.

The works on this phase of the BRT2 project are expected to be completed by 2030. That is in line with the statement that I made to the Assembly in February 2025. Therefore, there has been no delay. My officials are in the process of appointing engineering consultants to progress the detailed design phase, and it is hoped that groundworks will commence this year and construction early next year. Again, that is completely in line with my statement last year.

The Member will be aware that I announced last year that the extensions to Glengormley and Carryduff were, unfortunately, not economically feasible at this time. However, I am committed to continuing to work with Executive colleagues and city deal partners to bridge the gap, and I hope that the full extension —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, will you bring your answer to a close?

Ms Kimmins: — which includes Glengormley and Carryduff, can be delivered by 2033.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, I appreciate your positive tone, but the truth is that, in response to a question for written answer, you told me that it would be 2033 before the Glider phase 2 would be delivered. That is at least six years later than the public expected it. People on the Antrim Road in north Belfast and, particularly, in my case, people on the Ormeau Road in south Belfast expected the project to be transformational, but it is ultimately just a bendy bus.

Minister, you talked about funding challenges, but the spring Supplementary Estimates this year reveal that you handed back £5 million that was supposed to be dedicated to Glider. Can the public in south and north Belfast have any confidence that the scheme will ever be delivered?

Ms Kimmins: As I said in response to your question, the 2033 date is in relation to the full delivery, which is in line with what I said in my statement last year. We are absolutely on track with what was set out in that statement, and I have outlined where we are with that. I feel that the community in south Belfast can have confidence, because I am aware of no unforeseen delays, and I am pleased to see that we have made good progress to date.

Miss Hargey: Minister, it is good that you have confirmed that, because there seems to be a misrepresentation or misunderstanding of the timeline that you outlined last year. For complete clarity, will you confirm that there is no delay to the phase of the Glider in south and north Belfast?

Ms Kimmins: Yes, there has been absolutely no delay. I feel that there has been a misinterpretation of the responses that I gave on the timeline for the Glider and potentially a misunderstanding of the timeline that was announced in the statement last year. Progress to date includes completion of the feasibility study to assess the suitability of extending new corridors to Carryduff and Glengormley, which, unfortunately, were deemed not to be economically viable at this time. As the Member will be aware from my announcement last February, however, the Department will keep that under review. It is only when the extensions are completed that the BRT2 will be fully delivered, and that is what I was referring to as potentially being operational by 2033.

Mr Kingston: The Minister provided no clarity on extending the north Belfast Glider route to Glengormley. It sounds as though it will not happen. The Shore Road was not selected, despite its having the width and access to Newtownabbey, so what is the Minister doing to improve public transport links, especially for people in Newtownabbey, who could have benefited from the Glider service? In particular, I refer to the opportunities to create additional stations for the Northern Ireland rail network, such as at the Abbey Centre and at Seaview.

Ms Kimmins: As I said, we continually look at how we can obtain the funding to deliver BRT2 fully. We are committed to seeing its full realisation, and I will continue to work towards achieving that, while delivering on the phase that we announced last year.

We are always looking to make other public transport enhancements and improvements. The Member will be aware of the need for prioritisation under the all-island strategic rail review and of some of the other work that has been done. I am happy to provide more detail on where we are at with those specific asks, but I have set out clearly what the plans are.

Ms Kimmins: I first offer my sincere condolences to the families, friends and communities of all those who lost their lives in recent road traffic collisions. Just last week, we saw another fatality on the A5. Every death on our roads is a tragedy and has devastating consequences for everybody in that person's family and across the community.

All collisions are investigated by the PSNI, which will then share any relevant findings with my Department. My officials work closely with the PSNI to assist it with its enquiries and then take forward any actions that are within the Department's remit. Road traffic collisions can have a range of contributing factors, and, although the evidence available at this time indicates that the road network's condition was not identified as the principal causation factor in road deaths, its condition and safety is kept under continual review.

As Members will be aware, and as we have talked about on many occasions, particularly in recent weeks, the winter period has taken a severe toll on the road network, and that has been exacerbated by the many years of underfunding and underinvestment. The exceptionally poor weather in recent months has had an immediate impact. My Department is working extremely hard to fix the defects in the road network, using all the resources available to it. It adopts a risk-based approach to inspection, maintenance and intervention to ensure that the most severe defects are addressed in a timely manner. In addition, targeted safety schemes are developed using analysis of PSNI data to identify high-risk locations where there is evidence of collision history or emerging safety concerns and a common causation that could be addressed through engineering improvement measures. Interventions are prioritised in line with the funding available and are supported by collision analysis and engineering assessment.

Keeping people safe on our roads is a shared responsibility, and my Department continues to work collaboratively with the PSNI, the road safety partnership, local councils and a wide range of stakeholders to promote safer behaviour and improve outcomes. Ultimately, reducing the number of road deaths requires action from all of us, and, as a —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, I ask you to conclude your answer.

Ms Kimmins: — society, we must continue to work together to ensure that, whatever the journey, everyone gets home safely.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Minister for her answer. Minister, you are in charge of the road network. What will you therefore do over the next months to bring our roads up to a standard that means that we are not in the position of having the same appalling potholes this time next year?

Ms Kimmins: I am really glad that the Member asked that question, because, as I have said repeatedly, particularly in recent weeks, we have only to look back year-on-year to see that the issues are not new but ones that come up time and again. That is not an excuse. Rather, it is the reality. Yes, we have seen unprecedented levels of rainfall. That is a fact. We have heard it said by experts and seen it reported in the media and on the news. That has had a huge impact on the condition of our roads. Members are aware that my Department has developed the draft road maintenance strategy, which takes a new approach to how we deal with road maintenance, including doing simple things such as not just repairing one pothole while skipping potholes around it because they do not meet the criteria but instead looking at doing a larger patchwork of repairs in order to help build resilience and sustainability in order to ensure the integrity of the road.

Members are aware of the increased investment that I have allocated to our roads since December in response to the issues that we have experienced. Since December, I have allocated over £40 million. That is being used as we speak, including for 40 schemes that would not have got on track had we not been able to secure that additional money in this financial year. Members will be aware that I have invested £1·3 million in the digital roads survey. That has enabled us to use data to drive where we target resources and to look to prevention rather than cure. We can see, at an earlier stage, where roads are likely to break down and get to that much sooner, rather than trying to react to major defects, such as those that we have seen recently. Lastly, on recruitment, vacancies across the Department have been a huge issue, particularly among our industrial staff, whom we rely on to go out and fix our roads, particularly potholes. We have a number of recruitment campaigns coming up that will target that area specifically.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I am going to move on. I call Cathal Boylan.

Mr Boylan: Will the Minister outline what action she has taken to address road safety?

Ms Kimmins: In addition to what I have said, in my efforts, I have been proactive and tried to get ahead of the issue for next year. No one in the Chamber can say that this issue is new or has just happened in the past number of months. It is a result of years upon years of underinvestment. We all have to make difficult decisions on our budgets. As we prepare for price control 28 on waste water, we see another significant funding ask. I am cognisant of my responsibilities on that.

On the approach that I have taken, I mentioned the additional investment for this year. That is about maximising the funding available and the resources within the Department, and looking at which external contractors can help support us to deal with the significant deterioration of our road network. I mentioned the digital roads survey and how that will enable us to take more of a prevention-rather-than-cure approach to tackle and get ahead of the issues on our roads.

I will build on what I said about recruitment in my previous response. We have a significant number of vacancies across the Department, particularly among our industrial staff. We are taking a targeted recruitment approach to see how we can fill those vacancies and build capacity within the Department, so that we can have more people out dealing with the issues that impact on our roads.

Lastly, it is about looking at the strategy and how we can use that. Whilst it is a plan, it is a strategy. In the time ahead, particularly in this financial year, it is about ensuring that we use that strategy appropriately, look at what we have put into it and implement that. I am also looking at front-loading my budget to see how we can get ahead of the issue from April onwards and target investment to where it is most needed. That is where I am at.

Mr McNulty: Last night, at Newry, Mourne and Down District Council, the SDLP tried to table an emergency motion on the dangerous state of our roads, where there are potholes galore, calling on the Executive to deliver on the Barton recommendations, which would vastly improve the state of our roads and fill the potholes. Minister, why did your party block that motion from being tabled and the debate being heard? Do you not believe that the state of our roads is approaching emergency status, given the dangerous potholes?

Ms Kimmins: As I am not on the council, I cannot speak to what decisions took place at that council. However, we can get further information on that. There are standing orders and protocols in place on the tabling of motions at council, so I suspect that, if the motion did not get through for debate, it was not for any other reason than that. However, without all the information, I cannot comment on that.

I have outlined clearly what I am doing and what I intend to do to deliver a better outcome for our roads. Our roads are in a terrible state — absolutely — but I am focused on and will continue to focus on finding solutions. All the things that people have been calling on me to do: we are already doing or working towards doing them. I hope that we will see more of that, particularly through the strategy. As a member of the Infrastructure Committee, the Member knows what is included in that strategy and what it sets out to do. We are in the process of finalising the consultation report, and the early indications are that there has been a relatively positive response to what was set out in the draft road maintenance strategy. I look forward to hearing other proposals, if there are any, on how to deal with this and of solutions that will have a real and lasting impact, from within our limited financial budget.

Ms Kimmins: The Climate Change Act 2022 provides an important statutory framework that will shape how my Department plans and delivers road infrastructure going forward. I remain determined to do everything possible to improve road safety through the development of new and upgraded roads. Major schemes, such as the A5, the A4 Enniskillen bypass and the A1 junctions phase 2 project, continue to play a vital role in saving lives, supporting economic growth and improving regional connectivity. That is why they remain key commitments for me and why I am awaiting the outcome of the current A5 legal appeal.

The Act also reinforces the need to ensure that road infrastructure is planned and delivered in a way that is consistent with our climate change and decarbonisation obligations. My key transport decarbonisation policies and actions are already set out in the first draft climate action plan for 2023-27. My Department has been actively engaged in that process. Alongside DAERA, we hosted a transport sector decarbonisation stakeholder engagement event in September last year, and officials have since reviewed and assessed the transport responses from the public consultation. That work is ongoing in close collaboration with DAERA and other Departments, as the draft climate action plan is refined.

In practical terms, the Climate Change Act means that road infrastructure projects must continue to be assessed not only on their strategic economic and safety benefits but on how they align with climate objectives and legal requirements, and that includes ensuring that environmental considerations are fully integrated at each stage of development. It is also important that the Department allows appropriate time for the completion of legal proceedings, including those currently under way in relation to the A5, so that the Court of Appeal’s ruling can be fully understood. I consider it prudent to reflect on any lessons learned across other major road schemes to avoid the risk of further legal challenge and exposure to financial risk.

The Climate Change Act does not remove the need for vital road infrastructure, but it does require a more considered and robust approach that balances road safety, regional connectivity and economic growth with our statutory climate obligations.

Mr Buckley: Let us be honest, Minister: the Northern Ireland Climate Change Act in its current form has been an unmitigated disaster for infrastructure in Northern Ireland. The A5 is in court with over £100 million spent and not a single piece of tar laid; the A4 Enniskillen bypass is on hold; and the A1 upgrade is delayed again. Will the Minister commit to looking at fundamental reform of the Climate Change Act to deliver infrastructure projects? Will she agree that, the next time a bandwagon comes along, perhaps some people in the House will consider where it is going before they jump on it?

Ms Kimmins: As the Member will be aware, the Climate Change Act is not legislation from my Department, and it was agreed by the Assembly. Therefore, the Assembly’s agreement would be required to make any changes. I am committed to focusing on the appeal and winning it, because it is about saving lives. There may be other views about what the legislation means. My team and Minister Muir's team in DAERA are working extremely hard to evidence that we have followed the Act appropriately to win the appeal. I am committed to doing that because my ultimate priority is to build the A5 and get all the other road schemes under way.

Mr McAleer: Minister, thank you for your response and elaboration on the Climate Change Act that was introduced by the then AERA Minister, Mr Poots.

The most recent death on the A5 was last Monday night, which brings the stark statistic to almost 60 deaths on the road in the last 20 years. Minister, can you give us an update on the current status of the appeal?

Ms Kimmins: First, I offer my condolences to the family of the person who lost their life on the A5. It is another stark reminder of why we are doing what we are doing and working so hard to deliver the A5: so that no other family experiences what that family is going through.

As the Member will know, the High Court judgement on the A5 last year, which went against my Department, was hugely disappointing not just for me but for all the families and campaigners, such as the A5 Enough is Enough group, who have been extremely diligent and steadfast in their commitment to ensuring that the road is built. As the Member is aware, my Department appealed against the judgement, and the Department for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and Friends of the Earth were granted permission to formally intervene in the appeal on either side of the argument. The case was heard in part by the Appeal Court on 9 and 10 December 2025. The Court of Appeal referred the matter of the Climate Change Act back to the High Court, and the most recent hearing commenced last week. The Court of Appeal will reconvene following the outcome of that hearing. We will continue to focus on that. It is certainly my priority to deliver the most robust argument so that we get a positive resolution of that really important case.

Mr McReynolds: What impact will unchecked climate change, particularly higher temperatures and heavier rainfall, have on our road infrastructure? What adaptation measures is your Department taking to tackle that impact?

Ms Kimmins: That is a really good question, particularly given what we have seen in recent months. We have seen, I think, the wettest winter — certainly the wettest January and February — on record and the impacts of that not just on road maintenance but on the way in which we deal with flooding events. Given that the Member is on the Infrastructure Committee, he will be aware of the work that has been going on to plan and prepare for such events as well as to build resilience into what we are doing.

I have outlined to the Assembly today what I am doing on road maintenance. In 2017-18, the Barton review found that £1·2 billion would be needed to adequately maintain our road network. That figure continues to rise and is now, I think, at approximately £1·6 billion, which probably does not even take into account the impact that higher rainfall and extreme weather conditions will continue to have. We continually assess that impact and work that into how we build resilience and sustainability into the roads as well as how we plan for flooding events. We have done significant work, including the development of a flood forecasting centre, flood alleviation schemes and other initiatives.

I reassure the Member that we constantly assess the issues and look into the future to see what we can expect and how we can get ahead of that.

Mr Gaston: Does the Minister agree that unsafe roads are a greater threat to life than climate change and that modern infrastructure is more important than carbon emissions? Has the farce of 2,000 acres of prime farmland being destroyed by the botched A5 project not exposed the folly of Sinn Féin, the SDLP, Alliance and the Greens in backing the Climate Change Act and its amendments?

Ms Kimmins: There were a number of questions in that. That is comparing apples and pears. We have a responsibility to improve road safety and to continually work to achieve zero deaths on our roads, where possible. I have been doing that through further investment in road safety advertising, working with the Road Safety Partnership and looking at what else we can do to improve road safety.

One thing that we can do is to deliver the A5, because that will improve road safety and save lives. We can do that in line with our climate change responsibilities, and that is what I am committed to doing. Whilst there may be different opinions on climate change, I will work within my remit to adhere to the responsibilities that I have.

Ms Kimmins: Road resilience refers to how well a road network can withstand, adapt to and recover from disruptive events such as severe weather, flooding, landslides, accidents and infrastructure failures or long-term stresses such as climate change and increased traffic demand. On 2 December 2025, I launched a public consultation on the draft road maintenance strategy. The main objectives of the strategy are to improve the overall condition of the road network and enhance safety and quality as a means of improving resilience by delivering a targeted programme of intelligent maintenance investment and a sustainable maintenance regime. The consultation ended on 30 January, and, as I said earlier, initial indications show a positive response. My Department will continue to take a more detailed look at all the responses and publish the consultation report with the aim of finalising the road maintenance strategy in due course.

I have also committed to investing £1·3 million in the provision of a groundbreaking digital survey of the North's entire road network. That will provide a level of detail that will allow my officials to make data-driven, efficient decisions and interventions. The data provided by the new digital stocktake will assist in targeting resources for routine maintenance activities, such as patching, to ensure the best utilisation of scarce resources. Whilst the quality of repairs is currently monitored as part of routine highway inspections, the new digital survey will be a major advance in the assessment of the condition and durability of repairs on the network, as well as the performance of reinstatements associated with utility openings, which, I know, are of major interest to the majority of Members. That shows that we are working towards improving that.

It will also allow for longer-term life-cycle modelling and a much greater understanding of the implications of our investment decisions. That goes back to what I said earlier about a prevention-rather-than-cure approach. It will mean that we do not find that, come the end of each year, we have to react and almost firefight to try to deal with the emerging issues that our road network faces.

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

I commend the Minister for this new approach to road maintenance. How does the recruitment of staff fit into her new resilience plan?

Ms Kimmins: As I mentioned, we continue to face significant staff recruitment and retention challenges across the Department. We face particular challenges in relation to specialist roles, which have impacted on our ability to deliver essential services and infrastructure projects. To strengthen our workforce planning arrangements internally, we have established a people subcommittee to ensure that workforce capacity risks are identified and managed. As I mentioned earlier in response to previous questions, in order to build long-term resilience in our workforce, we are investing in new and innovative recruitment models. Officials plan to use the already successfully established academy approach to recruit new industrial staff, which will enhance our capacity in the Department to directly target pothole repairs and the fixing of our roads. We need more people who are equipped to do that and respond to the issues that impact on our roads. I am taking a targeted approach to recruitment so that we can do that and build in capacity for the future.

As well as that, building on the success of the Talent Dog recruitment exercise that was delivered by the Civil Service in the north-west, my officials intend to pilot that approach again in the recruitment of industrial staff. We intend to set out a number of recruitment opportunities. I hope that that will ensure that we start to backfill those vacancies and see a real impact in terms of response and delivery on our roads.

Mr Stewart: Aside from the lack of investment in our road infrastructure, one of the biggest impacts on road resilience is the diabolical state that our roads are left in by contractors that are used by utility companies. Time and time again, we see pavements and roads being left in a diabolical state right up and down my constituency. What is your Department doing to ensure the quality and finish of work on our roads and pavements by those contractors?

Ms Kimmins: I have outlined what we do now and what we intend to do under the new strategy. At present, maintenance staff continue to inspect and make safe any existing defects. They also look at what has been done by other companies and inspect that work. On completion of the repair, my officials undertake a percentage check to assess the quality of the pothole repair, or, when it comes to utility openings, the scheme, and confirm works for payment if the repair meets the required threshold. If a repair fails to satisfy the required standards, officials will request that it is rectified, and it will be subjected to further inspection. That process will continue until the repair fully complies with all stipulated requirements. As I mentioned, that is a percentage, so I know that issues can still emerge. That is why the digital survey is very important; it will provide us with a more effective way of monitoring those repairs so that we can deal with them on a more widespread basis and ensure that they are rectified where necessary.

Mr Dunne: Minister, our roads are in crisis. We have heard all the excuses, but now the public rightly want to see action. The consultation on the underwhelming draft road maintenance strategy closed over a month ago. Will you update the House on when we should expect the final version of the road maintenance strategy? Will it look at important points around the role of utilities in compromising our road network, which the draft ignored?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, you have 45 seconds.

Ms Kimmins: I have already answered all of those issues. I have set out not excuses but the facts. I have set out the actions that are under way and those that are going to happen in the time ahead. As I said, we are analysing the consultation responses. There has been a positive response to it, which I am very pleased to see. The publication of the final consultation report will help us to move towards the delivery of the final road maintenance strategy.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Mark Durkan to ask a very quick supplementary question.

Mr Durkan: Thanks, Mr Deputy Speaker. Divisional offices will be working up their investment and action plans for next year. Those have been getting slimmer every year, which is a sure sign of austerity, with fewer schemes being brought forward. Once the survey is complete, will such a survey be rolled out again, or will investment priorities be dictated for years to come by that snapshot of the state of our roads?

Ms Kimmins: It will be an ongoing process. At this stage, we have already seen the road network in full. We will certainly look at how we continue to utilise that. We could not just do one survey and say, "That's it. We're done. That's us for the next 10 or 15 years". There will be an ongoing review. It is more about ensuring that we better use resources and that decisions are data driven. The fact that we will need fewer staff to go out and do the survey means that they can be directed to do other work, which will help to build capacity in the system.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): That ends the period for listed questions. We now move to 15 minutes of topical questions.

Ms Kimmins: First, yes, I have met Caitlin-Rose's mum on a number of occasions. I completely admire her determination during a tragic, devastating time to turn her grief into action, and I very much appreciate her efforts in doing that. I gave a commitment to work hard to deliver the legislation.

The Member may be aware that, on the back of that, I developed the safer journeys to school programme. That has been established to improve safety for children and other vulnerable passengers, particularly when they are getting on and off buses. Road safety and the safety of our schoolchildren are absolute priorities for me as Minister. I am pleased to say that the Department's safer journeys to school programme is progressing at pace. We get regular updates from the team that is working on it. It is progressing towards a comprehensive package of measures, including legislation that is designed to reinforce the high level of care that is required of us all when driving past a bus that is carrying children.

As I have said previously in the House, I have met the Education Minister on the issue, because I recognise that, as Caitlin-Rose's mum said, it is not just legislation that is required; we need a wider piece, and I gave a commitment on that. I hope to be able to update the House on that fairly soon. I reassure and give confidence to the House that that work is progressing at pace. We have carried out extensive work to ensure that what we deliver will be delivered properly.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister for her answer. It is reassuring for families, I am sure, that that is a priority for you and your Department, but they would like a timeline for delivery. I recognise the pain that those families have experienced.

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for his comments. Whilst we all want to see the legislation delivered as quickly as possible, we know that, if we do not get it right, it can lead to further issues and consequences. We have a dedicated team of people working on it, and they are making it their priority. We want to ensure that what we do is done right so that we can continuously reduce such incidents and reduce roads deaths in all our communities.

Ms Kimmins: That has not been brought to my attention. It is deeply concerning. If there is a role for the Health Minister and me to work together on that, I am more than happy to do that. I have outlined the work that I am doing to try to tackle the serious deterioration of our roads over a relatively short time.

I have outlined to Members on a number of occasions the number of defects that are being reported. That number is continually being added to. I hope that we can deal with more and more of the defects during the period of dry weather that we are seeing. If, however, there is scope for me to work with the Minister of Health to ensure that what the Member mentioned, which would deeply concern me, does not happen, I am more than willing to do so.

Mr McReynolds: Thank you, Minister, for your response. Having dealt with you previously, I know that you will take the matter seriously. If you meet the Health Minister, will you explore the prioritisation of the maintenance of key routes with the trusts to make sure that, if domiciliary care staff are travelling on those core routes, the roads are in as good a state as they can be?

Ms Kimmins: That would require engagement with local section offices as well, because they may well have prioritised those roads already. At this stage in the financial year, it is about where the capacity is for delivery. If the Member knows of specific locations where that is an issue, I am happy for him to pass them on so that we can check with teams, because there could be further consequences.

That re-emphasises the importance of our road network. It is not just there to allow all of us in the Chamber to get to work or from A to B; it is a lifeline for many people, particularly those in rural areas. That is why I targeted funding that I got recently in my opening budget and from in-year allocations at rural roads through the roads recovery fund. I know how important that is for connectivity and for people, particularly the more vulnerable.

Ms Kimmins: As the Member is aware, we are currently going through an appeal. That is an indication that we are keen to evidence further why we think that the A5 road should be built under the existing legislation. That is why we are working with the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, the involvement of which is fundamental. I am still of the opinion that we should be able to proceed with the scheme. It is important that I let the court case run its course, but we continue to submit a robust case.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for her answer, but she fails to explain to the House how, she thinks, the existing legislation will cut it. Will she commit to reassessing the unrealistic targets in the Climate Change Act so that she can build the A5, the A4, the A1 and every other road that needs to be built?

Ms Kimmins: As I have said, we are going through the appeal process. My priority is to submit the most robust case so that we can win the appeal and deliver the road, as well as the other schemes that the Member mentioned. We are working closely with DAERA on that. It was agreed by the Executive —

Mr Frew: By the Assembly.

Ms Kimmins: By the Assembly. I correct myself: I meant to say "the Assembly". Everybody understood what they were signing up to, but this is the first test of that Act. There are areas where it is down to interpretation and we have to understand what it means. From what I have seen, we should be able to proceed, and my priority is to win the appeal.

Ms Kimmins: Given our discussions today, the Member will be aware that, over the past number of years, every aspect of departmental delivery has been under pressure because of the Executive Budget and the budgets that Departments are allocated out of it. We are all continually being challenged. I regularly engage with Translink, and I met it again in recent weeks to look at the potential for the budget. As I do not yet have an agreed budget for this year, we will continue to work on that. I do not underestimate that challenge, and we continue to work with Translink to find ways to ensure that we can mitigate any potential losses.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Minister for her answer. I appreciate that the Minister may not have the information with her, but, if she could follow up, that would be good. Can the Minister confirm what proportion of that projected loss relates specifically to socially necessary services funded through the PSO? Has a root analysis been undertaken to assess those services and see whether they can be delivered more efficiently?

Ms Kimmins: We continually challenge all our arm's-length bodies (ALBs) to constantly review how they can make further efficiencies. In fairness to Translink, it has been doing that and has shown where it has made savings to try to live within its budget, as is expected of all of us. I commend Translink for that. This is ongoing work, and, as we go into a new budgetary period, we will hopefully have a multi-year Budget that will enable us to plan more efficiently and effectively to deal with the issues that you have outlined.

I am happy to come back to the Member on that where I can, but, as far as I am concerned, at this point, it is more about looking at what we can do in the future. We have a draft Budget, but, when we have our actual Budget, we will be able to give a more realistic analysis of what that will mean.

Mrs Dodds: Minister, I will take you back to the state of our roads, which is one of the most pressing issues that I have in my constituency office every day. I met the southern division recently to discuss the programme and how things were working out. It was indicated to me that the road maintenance budget for the division was spent by the end of the summer, which indicates that, perhaps, there was not a realistic budget for road maintenance in the first place.

Ms Kimmins: It was August or almost September by the time we got a finalised budget last year, and the exact reason was that we had such difficult decisions to make on so many competing priorities, including our road network and our waste water and public transport infrastructure — all the things that everyone in the Chamber wants to see improved, enhanced and delivered to the standard that the public expect.

We had an opening budget of £68 million, and I know that that fell well short of what was needed. That is why, when I had the opportunity to reallocate funding or obtain additional funding, I did so, bringing that budget up to just over £105 million. That still falls well short of what is needed and is not ideal because it is too late in the year, I think, to get ahead of what we are dealing with now. However, as I said, I am entering discussions with my team to look at how we can prioritise road maintenance at the earliest possible stage this year, because I know that it will take us into the new financial year to deal with what we are dealing with. We need to front-load that budget as far as possible. It will not be easy — I am under no illusion about that — but I certainly do not want us to be in the situation that we are in. As well as that, there will be a cumulative impact from the other measures that I am taking regarding the new strategy, the digital survey and the recruitment campaign so that we see real results that will make a positive difference for everybody.

Mrs Dodds: The other issue that came across very clearly was that the maintenance division is short of staff by about 30%. That is not just maintenance staff; it is also the people who design roads for the future. Therefore, the delivery of new schemes is impacted as well. When will the recruitment campaigns begin? Where will they be focused? Will they make up for the huge shortage that we see now?

Ms Kimmins: I spoke to that earlier. Filling vacancies in specialist roles is difficult. There is a 30% vacancy rate in administrative, engineering and industrial roles across our roads divisions. That is why we have established a people subcommittee. I know that that means nothing to the vast majority of people, but I hope that it shows that we are emphasising the need to tackle the issue. The workforce capacity risks need to be identified — we are at that stage — and managed.

To build in that longer-term resilience, we are investing in more innovative recruitment models. I talked earlier about the academy approach that has been used, as well as the Talent Dog recruitment process being used by the Civil Service.

At present, 22 recruitment campaigns are under way, and, in the past 12 months, our efforts have led to approximately 200 new appointments, with a further 300 anticipated soon. As I said, officials are using the other recruitment approaches that I mentioned. I think that the first one is due to start in the coming weeks, but I can come back to the Member with more detail on that. I really want to emphasise that that is a key focus area for me. We can have all the money in the world, but it is no good to us if we have no staff to go out and do what needs to be done.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Kellie Armstrong for a quick question.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Please give a brief answer, Minister.

Ms Kimmins: The SORPI arrangements were put in place to recognise the ongoing challenges faced by NI Water, so I do not agree that it is a get-out-of-jail-free card. It is realistic, given what is happening and how we can manage that, particularly given the financial constraints. I have been engaging with the Member's colleague the AERA Minister on his proposal to remove the SORPI arrangement. He gave a statement to the Assembly today on that, and there needs to be further ongoing engagement in relation to that. We have to balance that with the impacts on the ability to meet the required standards if that is introduced.

There are so many consequences to absolutely everything that we do. I recognise that we have to take major steps forward to meet our environmental responsibilities, and that is something that I am absolutely committed to doing. We have to do that in a realistic way that recognises the budgetary constraints and the scale of the issues that we are dealing with. I will continue to work with the Minister on that.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members and Minister, thank you. Time is up. I ask Members to take their ease before we move to the next item in the Order Paper.

Mr Durkan: This is a good day, and it is not just because it is my birthday. It is good to get the opportunity to speak today on the long-overdue removal of the two-child limit. It was a significant driver of policy on these islands in recent years, and the impact has hit hardest and been felt most severely here in the North.

The SDLP vociferously warned that it would drive children into poverty and heap pressure on already struggling families. That reality has, sadly, come to pass. Parties here, with the exception of the SDLP, did not just vote for the Welfare Reform Bill, but, when doing so, handed powers to the Tories to do even more damage, and they did so with relish, nowhere more so than with this draconian, almost dystopian, policy, along with its odious rape clause.

We opposed it then. We have campaigned against it since, and we welcome its removal now. However, the change must be managed properly. We cannot afford a poorly handled transition. Communication around the move to universal credit (UC) has been a bit of a quagmire in itself, from weak signposting to the new claims grant — to help — to the failure to clearly explain the mechanics of transitional protection. If that odious policy is to be undone properly, the Department must raise awareness to ensure that claimants fully understand how the changes will affect them. I welcome assurances from the Minister today in that regard. However, we know through experience that what is outlined in policy does not always occur in practice.

As of August 2025, 17,600 children were not eligible for the child element of universal credit because of the two-child limit. The Minister gave some more recent figures on that. Lifting the policy will, undoubtedly, lift thousands of children out of poverty overnight and lift others a wee bit closer to having some degree of comfort. While we very much welcome that step, we cannot ignore some of the wee questions that remain unanswered. The Minister told me previously that officials were undertaking a larger piece of work to determine what the wider impact of removing the two-child limit will be on awards. Has that analysis been done and, if so, when we will see it? Members are being asked to consent to legislative change without having the full picture. That is not great governance. Sadly, however, it is a situation that we have become used to. My Committee colleagues and I raised the issue of transitional protections, cognisant that this change could result in an erosion of those protections. Has the Department quantified how many claims will be adversely impacted on as a result of the change? We must not repeat the mistakes of the past. Welfare reform was a disaster. It is good that all parties here worked to ensure that we got a mitigations package, but it is something of a tangled web. There is a confused picture of what is out there, between mitigation schemes, transitional payments and cliff edges.

That brings me to the benefit cap mitigations. Recently, I asked the Minister whether he would extend benefit cap mitigations indefinitely to ensure that families are not forced to teeter along another cliff edge. His response, which he has reiterated today, was that it will be for the Executive to agree funding for those schemes, which are due to end in two years' time. Between now and then, we will be heading into — and, hopefully, coming out of — another election. We will have finished one mandate and moved into the next if, that is, we are lucky enough to even have an Executive. I know that a week is a long time in politics, but two years will go past in the blink of an eye. That deadline will come along far quicker than some might think, and families cannot be left in limbo. We have seen this debacle before, waiting until a minute before midnight and then scrambling around for an extension. That is not the actions of a proactive Government; it is more of a kind of crisis management.

Families who live in poverty need certainty. We need a comprehensive, costed and funded anti-poverty strategy. We hope to hear more from the Minister on that in the near future. If we are serious about tackling child poverty, benefit cap mitigations must be extended indefinitely. We cannot allow anxiety to build, year after year. As I said, the removal of the two-child limit is great news and it is necessary, but we also need a bit more clarity on the transitional protections and a firm commitment on the benefit cap mitigations.

As I bring my remarks to a close, I pay tribute to campaigners, particularly the incredible Cliff Edge Coalition and its component parts, for their passion, compassion and unwavering efforts to do what is right for our most vulnerable and for our society as a whole. Let us work alongside them to ensure that planning begins now, not in 2027, and definitely not in 2028. Let us lift children out of poverty but also ensure that we do not replace one grievously flawed policy with a new layer of uncertainty.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Mark. Sonas ort inniu.

Happy birthday.

Mr Bradley: I support the legislative consent motion (LCM) and what it means in practical terms. Across Northern Ireland, there are families who work hard to raise three or four children and do everything that is asked of them, yet they find that support simply stops after their second child. The Bill did not stop. The cost of food does not stop, nor does the price of heating, clothing and school essentials, but their support does. That is the reality that many larger families have faced. The removal of the two-child limit restores a basic fairness. A child should not count for less, simply because they happen to be the third or fourth child in a family. Parents do not budget for their children in policy terms but provide for each one of them equally. Our support system should recognise that reality. This change will mean real money going back into household budgets. It means less pressure at the kitchen table, less anxiety for parents trying to make ends meet and greater stability for the children growing up in homes already stretched by rising living costs.

Let me also address the financial point directly. This support is funded by His Majesty's Treasury through established parity arrangements and does not come out of the Northern Ireland block grant. It does not take a single pound away from our hospitals, schools or policing. Supporting this legislative consent motion is therefore the responsible decision, delivering help quickly, maintaining parity across the United Kingdom and doing so without placing additional pressure on devolved finances. This is about fairness, practicality and supporting families who are doing their best in difficult circumstances. For those reasons, I support the legislative consent motion.

Ms Mulholland: I welcome the opportunity to finally stand here in the Chamber in support of the legislative consent motion on the Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill. Like others, I want to be absolutely clear about what the two-child limit represented. It was a policy choice made at Westminster that told families that not every child mattered the same and that some children were worth less than their siblings purely because of their birth order. It was a deliberate decision to withdraw support from children, particularly in the most vulnerable of families. It ignored the reality of family life, particularly here in Northern Ireland, and it ignored the fact that relationships break down, bereavement happens, illness strikes, employment is insecure and circumstances change. As we now know from the mountains of evidence, it embedded child poverty even deeper in our society.

The LCM begins to correct that profound injustice, but it is a correction, not a cure. We in the Chamber cannot relax at this point. Child poverty in Northern Ireland remains far too high. Around one in four to one in three children here are living in relative poverty after housing costs. The two-child limit has been one of the drivers of hardship — this deep, long-lasting poverty — and removing it has the potential to lift thousands of children out of poverty, as we have heard, or, at the very least, reduce the depth of poverty that they experience. However, we are still in a time when food bank usage remains at its highest. We are seeing families absolutely stretched to breaking point by the cost of living. This intervention really could not come soon enough. In-work poverty has to be central to the conversation. We heard at the Committee last week from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation that too many families are working full-time and yet still cannot reach the end of the month in a financially good place. We know that childcare costs shape whether parents — particularly women, let us just say — can work. Insecure and low-paid work drives instability.

During engagement on the LCM, stakeholders rightly raised with us implementation concerns around communication with claimants, the interaction with welfare mitigations and particularly the treatment of those in transitional protection, as Mr Durkan outlined. The Law Centre Northern Ireland and Advice NI have warned about the unintended consequences and the erosion of transitional protection over time. If families now are not clearly informed, they may miss out. Given the transitional arrangements, some could face unexpected losses, giving with one hand and taking with the other, as I have said in the Chamber before. If implementation of this is rushed or under-resourced and miscommunicated, confusion and uncertainty could undermine the purpose of the reform, so we have to get the detail right.

Overall, if we want poverty to fall at pace and at scale, as the Minister has said, the ambition of our Executive has to be to match the scale of the challenge. Removing the two-child limit is an important legislative correction; let us not underplay that. However, if we are complacent and treat this as the end of the conversation, we will stagnate. Stagnation in poverty terms, to be very clear, means yet more children growing up without opportunity. Removing the two-child limit is significant, and we welcome it. We have campaigned for it for long enough, but it is not the North Star. It is not on its own the structural reform that will break the cycle. If we are really serious about tackling poverty, particularly child poverty, it has to become the North Star of any future Programme for Government. The anti-poverty strategy has to be the foundation of that ambition, and that means every single departmental budget decision being tested against poverty impact and every Department contributing to poverty reduction with clear targets, clear accountability and independent monitoring.

Today, Alliance welcomes the necessary correction. However, tomorrow, in the next mandate and in any future Programme for Government, poverty has to sit at the heart of our decision-making.

Mr Allen: Like previous Members who spoke, I welcome and speak in support of the legislative consent motion. The two-child limit was not a technical tweak to tax credits or, later, universal credit. It was a significant policy change that has increased poverty and placed additional pressure on households, many of which were already struggling. In practice, it pushed families further into hardship, left parents facing impossible choices and reduced the support available to children.

The evidence presented to the Committee for Communities, highlighted by the Chair and other Members, reaffirmed the scale of the impact that the policy has had. Advice organisations and those working on the front line set out plainly how it deepened poverty and caused genuine distress. Families are struggling to afford basics such as healthy food or keeping the heating on. That is something that we see week in and week out through our constituency offices and through the support that, I know, many of us have helped to deliver, such as the Bryson support scheme with electricity. People are reaching out simply because they cannot stretch their budgets any further.

This change is an important step, but it must form part of a broader and more joined-up approach to tackling poverty. If we are serious about making a lasting and meaningful impact, it cannot stop here. This important step should send a clear message that our social security system exists to protect children and provide stability when it is needed most. It should not compound difficulties or make already challenging circumstances worse. There has been broad support from across civic society for scrapping the policy, which reflects what many of us have heard from constituents, and it is the right decision. At the same time, we should be clear, as we have heard from other Members, that passing the LCM should not be the end of the conversation. Those who gave evidence to the Committee rightly highlighted the need for proper implementation, clear communication with claimants, and careful consideration of how this change interacts with other parts of our system. That is sensible and necessary.

If we are serious about tackling poverty, this step must sit alongside wider action, including delivery through our anti-poverty and fuel poverty strategies. Ambition must be matched by funding. The warm healthy homes fund is one example of where that commitment needs to be real and sustained. At its heart, however, the motion is about fairness. It is about ensuring that a child's future is not determined by the order in which they were born, and it is about removing a policy that has caused real harm. We support the LCM and, like the Member opposite, are keen to hear more from the Minister regarding the communication plan and that there is no impact on transitional protection.

I was delighted to hear that Ms Mulholland managed to get the "North Star" comment in from our Committee briefing. This is, as the Member opposite on his birthday highlighted, a good day, but it is a policy that we should not have been debating. There were strong views that the policy was the wrong approach by the UK Government, and it is good that we have finally seen a U-turn on it.

Ms Ferguson: Sinn Féin has consistently opposed and directly challenged the British Government since the introduction of the two-child limit. It was the most unconscionable policy. It was a direct attack on working families, and it created hardship among families here. We opposed it because targeting vulnerable children in particular is indefensible. Repeated calls to scrap the cap were in recognition of the fact that that British Government austerity policy punished financially families with more than two children. More than 17,000 children here were left ineligible to receive vital financial support of over £3,500 per child per year through the child element of universal credit. Next month, thanks be to God, we will all finally see the policy's long-awaited removal.

I personally thank the Cliff Edge Coalition, Barnardo’s, the Trussell Trust, the Resolution Foundation, the NI welfare mitigations review independent advisory panel, the Women's Support Network, Save the Children and many others for their relentless campaigning. I also thank them for their briefing papers to us in particular to support that view.

Sinn Féin is clear that freedom from poverty is a fundamental right. Removing the two-child limit will be a significant step forward in protecting that right. The two-child cap forced families in all our communities to make an unjustifiable decision about family planning on the basis of their income. We need to see that step further bolstered by a strong anti-poverty strategy, the revitalisation of the Housing Executive and a sustainable means of cutting childcare costs for families and support providers.

For its part, Sinn Féin is taking action to tackle poverty by introducing legislation today to make consistent holiday hunger payments and to tackle school uniform costs. We will also press the Minister for Communities today to deliver on the anti-poverty strategy, which will have a real impact on people's lives. Let us have clear actions, clear timelines and clear targets and ensure that the strategy is genuinely shaped by the lived experience of people here. When Sinn Féin had responsibility for the Department for Communities, we stood over the benefits mitigations and prevented the British Government's cruel bedroom tax from being introduced here. We also continued to press the British Government to address the significant waits that people had for their first universal credit payment, to relink housing costs to housing support and to raise the tax-free childcare support rate.

Poverty is a political choice perpetuated by austerity, low wages and inadequate social protections. Although we all continually stand up for our hard-pressed workers and families and seek to mitigate austerity and cuts, ultimately, the long-term and only real solution is to free ourselves from decision-making from London and prevent ourselves being tied to the punitive policies that successive British Governments have imposed.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call the Minister for Communities to conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech on the motion.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. As I explained earlier, the removal of the two-child limit must be extended to Northern Ireland, and it is right that that is happening. Agreeing to the legislative consent motion will allow that important provision to be enacted across the UK. The abolition of the two-child limit will increase the amount of support available to families on universal credit with three or more children or qualifying young people. That is a significant change that will help our ambition to tackle child poverty.

I will highlight a few concerns that Members raised during the debate. The first relates to transitional protection. The intent behind it was to ensure not only that claimants who move to UC are not worse off at the point of transition from legacy benefits but that their award equalises over time with that of claimants who do not transition from legacy benefits. That is why the transitional element was put in place. Following the removal of the two-child limit, households that are currently affected by the two-child limit will see an increase in their underlying UC entitlement. That is expected to reduce any UC transitional element that may be in payment. Our analysis shows that, as of November 2025, of the 1,580 households that are in receipt of transitional protection and that will be impacted on by the removal of the two-child limit, 1,050 of them will receive an increase in their UC award that is greater than their current transitional protection award. That will reduce their transitional protection award to zero, but their overall UC award will increase. The remaining 530 households will have their transitional element reduced, but their overall UC award will not change. I have asked questions about that and have been assured that nobody in Northern Ireland will be worse off as a result of the changes.

The other question that more than one Member asked concerned communication. We have developed communications for affected UC claimants, not only to advise them but to support them to understand the changes that are coming into effect. That includes the Department's nidirect content being updated to explain the change and that subsequent reassessment of entitlement to UC will be automated. Alternative formats of communication are available on request, and all web content is considered to be in line with the accessibility regulations.

Secondly, as UC is a digital systems benefit, claimants will receive direct communication through their UC digital journal, advising of the removal of the two-child limit. Messaging will also advise claimants to ensure that their reported circumstances are up to date, and explain that the exact amount of UC received each month still depends on their individual circumstances. Thirdly, from April 2026, social media messages will be issued to raise awareness of the changes that are being developed. Finally, telephone support teams will be on hand to answer any queries arising from the changes. I hope that that will allay some of the fears that Members may have in relation to those issues.

This is not a debate on the anti-poverty strategy — I would welcome that very much — but Members have raised the issue. I completely agree that we need to have in place an anti-poverty strategy that will actually make a difference, will tackle the root causes of poverty and is affordable. We need to make sure that we put all those different measures on the table, weigh them against one another, decide which will be most beneficial, and, then, prioritise them according to the difference that they can make in the lives of the people whom we are here to represent.

I am trying to push on with that work as quickly as I can with Executive colleagues. It is largely out of my hands. I encourage them, and I encourage you, as Members, to encourage those Ministers to come back with their feedback, so that we can have a proper discussion. There will be a dedicated conversation on that in the next few weeks, so that we can drill down into some of those areas. I agree that the measure that we are debating today is an important tool to help us tackle poverty. However, we can do more, and we must focus our efforts on the things that will get a return for the investment. I welcome Andy Allen's comments on the warm healthy homes fund, in particular. It is a no-brainer. It is one of the most important things that we can put money into. It is an investment not with a one-off benefit but with benefits that will recur each and every year. I am committed to doing what I can in that way.

Today is beneficial. It is good news that we are able to start the process of making these changes. There will be consequences for the Executive to consider as part of the budgetary process: the gap that will now exist because of the benefit cap will have to be filled. However, we commit to doing that today by bringing forward and supporting the LCM. I commend it to the House.

Mr Baker: I beg to introduce the Education (Holiday Meal Payments) Bill [NIA 27/22-27], which is a Bill to make provision for direct payments to be made during school holidays to pupils entitled to receive free school meals; and for connected purposes.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Well done, Danny.

Mr Sheehan: I beg to introduce the Irish-medium Education (Workforce Plan) Bill [NIA 28/22-27], which is a Bill to require the Department of Education to prepare a workforce plan in respect of Irish-medium education.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Maith thú, a Phat.

Members, please take your ease for a few moments before we start the next item of business. Thank you.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The next item of business is an all-party motion on International Women's Day 2026.

Ms Sheerin: I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members will have four minutes. Emma, please open the debate on the motion.

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

I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the Assembly to mark International Women's Day, which falls on Saturday. The motion invites us to reflect on the contributions, leadership and lived experiences of women from across every part of our society, and it challenges us to recognise the work that remains to be done. We know the value that women bring to our society, be it in classrooms, boardrooms or waiting rooms. Women are carers, cleaners and CEOs, and the work that they do, both paid and unpaid, turns the world around.

Whilst we acknowledge progress, we must also be honest about the persistent inequalities that shape the experiences of too many women and girls. Structural barriers remain, as does everyday sexism, violence and the threat of violence. For women who step into public life, hostility, intimidation and abuse, online and offline, remain an exhausting and often frightening reality. Today, the Assembly sends the message that women's voices will not be silenced. We will amplify them, and we will stand with them.

We commit ourselves to building an environment where women can participate fully and safely. The motion rightly acknowledges the organisations — large and small; grassroots and national — whose efforts inspire, equip and encourage women into leadership positions. Representation does not happen by accident; it happens because people and organisations invest in women and girls. It happens because someone, somewhere, has said, "Your voice matters. You belong here", and for that work, we are deeply grateful.

As a member of the Assembly Women's Caucus, I am proud of the collaborative and cross-party space that it provides in this institution. Politics is very often divisive — that is the very nature of it — but the caucus shows what is possible when we come together with a shared purpose. A recent two-day conference, entitled 'Supporting Women in Public Life', was a fantastic example of that, and it brought together women from England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland, North and South. Throughout the event, we heard from women who have broken new ground, challenged long-established norms and led with integrity and courage. We heard about the persistent barriers women face, and the innovative work being undertaken to dismantle them. Perhaps, most importantly, we created a space where women could connect, collaborate and learn from each other. The experiences shared were honest, inspiring and, at times, deeply challenging. Women spoke about not only their achievements but the realities of leadership: the scrutiny, the expectations and the burden of online and in-person abuse, which disproportionately targets women in public life.

The Executive's strategic framework to end violence against women and girls, which is an epidemic in this part of the world, is a crucial step towards addressing one of the most significant and enduring obstacles to equality. Violence is not only a criminal justice issue; it is a societal issue. It shapes women's behaviour, their freedom of movement, their opportunity to thrive and their sense of safety. The framework sets out a bold ambition, but ambition must be matched by sustained implementation, resourcing and accountability. Ending violence against women and girls requires a cultural shift, and a cultural shift requires leadership from government, institutions, communities and every one of us. It requires bravery and people standing up and speaking out against societal norms.

International Women's Day is a global celebration, but it is also a day for reflection and responsibility. Our world is in turmoil, and history tells us that women are the biggest losers in war. Women rarely start wars, but we face the impact of them all the more. At this time, I find myself thinking of the young women and girls whose stories of oppression are being used as cover by egomaniacal warlords to justify using their weapons of mass destruction in yet another ploy to get oil and other resources. They do not care about those women, but they use them to further their objectives. Just this weekend, over 150 women were murdered in a joint project, but their names are not spoken. We owe them a future that is shaped not by limitation but by possibility.

Today, we celebrate the achievements of women across history and across our communities. We honour the women who led before us, the women who lead beside us and the women whose roles in leadership are ahead of them. We recommit to equality, opportunity, safety and the shared belief that women's leadership strengthens every part of our society.

Mrs Cameron: I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of the motion, which marks International Women's Day 2026. International Women's Day gives us the chance to recognise the invaluable contribution that women make across our society: in our workplaces, in our schools, in our hospitals, in our churches, in our voluntary organisations, in our businesses, on our farms and in our homes and communities. Women are central to the strength, stability and success of Northern Ireland. This year's theme of "Give to gain" is particularly fitting. When we support women, create opportunity and remove barriers, we do not disadvantage anyone; we strengthen families, communities and our economy.

As a party, the DUP has consistently raised the practical issues that matter to women and families. Affordable and accessible childcare remains one of the greatest challenges facing working mothers and young families. If we are serious about enabling women to participate fully in the workforce or to pursue leadership roles, childcare provision must be sustainable, flexible and properly supported. Reducing pressures from such challenges is not just a women's issue; it is an economic necessity.

We must do more to improve healthcare provision for women. Conditions such as endometriosis can be debilitating, yet too many women face long delays in getting a diagnosis and access to appropriate treatment and preoperative services. That is simply not good enough. Women deserve timely care, proper resourcing of specialist services and a health system that listens to their concerns. We will continue to press for improved endometriosis pathways and better outcomes across women's health.

We must remove barriers wherever they exist, whether that is in employment, entrepreneurship, rural life or public service. Women in rural communities in particular often face additional pressures in balancing work, family and caring responsibilities. Practical support and sensible policy must reflect those realities.

While we celebrate progress, we must address the challenges that persist. Women in public life continue to face unacceptable levels of abuse and intimidation, particularly online. No woman should be deterred from standing for election or engaging in debate by harassment or degrading content. We must stand firmly against that behaviour. We also reaffirm our commitment to tackling violence against women and girls. Every woman and girl has the right to safety, dignity and respect. Frameworks and strategies must be matched by delivery and accountability.

International Women's Day is about celebrating achievement, but it is also about confidence. It is about standing proud together and supporting one another to achieve our full potential. It is about encouraging young girls to believe that there are no limits to their ambition. It is about saying clearly and confidently, "We are women, and our contribution matters". Let us continue to build a Northern Ireland where women are supported, barriers are removed, families are strengthened and the next generation can pursue their dreams with confidence.

Ms Bradshaw: I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of the motion and thank the Women's Caucus for bringing it forward. It is right that the Assembly recognises the contribution and leadership of women across every sphere of life in advance of International Women's Day. When women are given the opportunity to lead, society benefits. When women's talents are enabled, rather than constrained, the quality of life improves for everyone — economically, socially and democratically. As Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, we see that impact every day. Women are leading in our schools, driving innovation in our businesses, sustaining our health service and holding communities together, often while carrying a disproportionate share of caring responsibilities. Their leadership is not abstract; it is practical, visible and transformative.

However, recognising contribution must not become a substitute for delivering equality. The motion rightly acknowledges that much remains to be done. The gender pay gap persists. Society continues to undervalue work that is traditionally done by women. Childcare costs remain a significant barrier to participation and progression. If we are serious about equality of opportunity, affordable childcare must be treated as a core economic infrastructural priority, not as an add-on.

As a side note, given that it is World Book Day this week, I am reading a wonderful book called 'The Moment of Lift' by Melinda Gates. I recommend it to everyone. It is from 2019. A lot has happened to that poor woman since that time, but the work that she has done on the global stage is really inspiring.

On the issue of childcare and some of the other societal issues, we also face an unacceptable reality of abuse — I think that the two Members who spoke before me both referred to this — as women in public life. In our positions of responsibility, we face intimidation and harassment simply for using our voices. That abuse is designed to silence and deter us, and, unfortunately, it is getting worse, instead of better, for us all. Amplifying the voices of those who are subjected to abuse means more than expressing solidarity; it requires action, stronger enforcement, cultural change and practical support. No woman should feel that participation in public life comes at the cost of her safety or dignity.

I echo the motion's commendation of the organisations that equip and encourage women to stand for election and progress in their chosen fields. Those initiatives matter. They challenge the structural barriers — financial, cultural and practical — that still inhibit representation. A democracy functions best when it reflects the society that it serves. The Assembly's support for the strategic framework to end violence against women and girls is particularly important in that regard. That framework must be more than a statement of intent. It must be properly resourced, genuinely cross-departmental and focused on prevention as well as response. Short-term funding cycles for routine front-line services create instability where stability is most needed. Ending violence requires sustained commitment.

International Women's Day 2026 is, of course, a moment for celebration, but it is also a moment for reflection. Celebration without accountability risks complacency. Progress has been made, but progress is neither inevitable nor evenly distributed. True equality means dismantling structural barriers, embedding fairness in our budgets and policies and ensuring that section 75 duties shape decision-making in a meaningful way. It means recognising intersectional disadvantage and ensuring that women from minority ethnic backgrounds, disabled women, LGBTQ+ women and working-class women —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Ms Bradshaw: — are not left behind.

Ms D Armstrong: I thank the Women's Caucus for the event that it hosted this morning. I am pleased to support the motion, which marks International Women's Day 2026. The motion reflects something that women have long understood: when we invest in one another and when we share opportunity and lift one another up, everyone benefits. That spirit of generosity and shared progress is at the heart of what we are recognising today.

When I spoke in the Chamber on International Women's Day last year, I was the only woman MLA in the Ulster Unionist Party grouping. I remain the sole woman in the grouping, but I now serve as deputy leader of the party. That journey reminds me that barriers can be broken. It also reminds me that none of us can do that alone. I am grateful for the strong women and men who have supported me along the way, including many women in the Chamber.

The Assembly rightly recognises the leadership and contribution of women in every sphere of life. Leadership is found in our hospitals, where women make up the majority of the health and care workforce; our schools; our voluntary and community organisations; our businesses; and our charities. It is found in the women who hold families and communities together, often without recognition or reward. Research consistently shows that, when women are educated, employed and empowered, communities thrive, economies grow stronger, health outcomes improve and children achieve more. Equality is not a favour that is extended to women; it is an investment in society as a whole.

While we celebrate progress, we must also be honest: much remains to be done. The gender pay gap persists; women are still under-represented in senior leadership roles, on boards and in political life; girls from disadvantaged backgrounds face barriers that have nothing to do with their ability or ambition; and women from minority communities, disabled women and those in rural areas experience layered inequalities that demand our attention.

International Women's Day must be both a celebration and a call to action. I particularly welcome the motion's recognition of

and to advance in their chosen profession. Many women who step forward do so because someone invested in them, gave them confidence and skills or simply reassured them that they were ready. That work matters, and it deserves our support.

We must also speak clearly about the abuse faced by women in public life and beyond. Online and in-person harassment is designed to silence women and drive them out of debate. It is not simply an attack on individuals; it is an attack on democracy itself. We must stand unequivocally with women whose voices are targeted and say that they will not be silenced.

We cannot ignore the stark reality of violence against women and girls. The strategic framework to end violence against women and girls is not optional; it is essential. Violence against women is not a private issue; it is a public health crisis and a human rights issue. Every woman and girl deserves to live free from fear, coercion and harm.

Today, we celebrate the women who broke barriers, who changed laws, who led movements, who built businesses, who cared for families and who persevered in the face of challenge. We celebrate the women in the Chamber and those watching from home. Let our celebration renew our resolve. Let it strengthen our commitment to building a Northern Ireland where every woman and girl can live safely, participate fully and realise her potential. Equality strengthens us all. Together, let us ensure that progress continues not just in words but in action. I commend the motion to the Assembly.

Ms McLaughlin: I thank the Women's Caucus for tabling the motion. Before I talk about the motion, as chair of the all-party group on UNSCR 1325, women, peace and security, I say that, on International Women's Day, we must remember the women of Sudan, Gaza and Afghanistan and throughout the Middle East. War is cruel, and women and children bear the brunt of the evil and instability that prevail in our world today. We must never forget them.

International Women's Day is a moment to celebrate the extraordinary contribution that women make across every part of our society in public life, business and education and in our communities and families. Women's leadership enhances the quality of life for everyone. However, celebration must be matched with honesty. Women make up over half of our population, yet, across many of the most powerful roles in Northern Ireland, women remain unrepresented.

Just six of our top 100 companies are led by women. In the judiciary, women hold fewer than one third of the most senior positions. Two thirds of the most senior roles in the PSNI are held by men. Although women now make up 40% of MLAs, they account for less than one third of councillors, while only four of our 11 councils have female chief executives. Those are not isolated statistics: they reflect structural barriers that continue to shape who leads, who decides and who is heard.

As an MLA, I am acutely aware that progress does not happen by accident; it requires deliberate effort and sustained political will. The growing threats that women face, particularly online, must also be confronted. The rise of artificial intelligence has enabled the spread of deepfake imagery, including the manipulation of women's photographs into sexually explicit content without consent. That is a profound violation, and it causes real harm. Female public representatives continue to face unacceptable levels of abuse and misogyny online. The anonymity of social media has created an environment in which intimidation is normalised. That discourages participation and silences voices. It damages not only individuals but our democracy.

Alongside that, women continue to shoulder the majority of unpaid care. Nearly 60% of unpaid carers are women. Women are far more likely to provide care during their life, often at significant economic cost, and that economic cost goes right through to their retirement. The economic activity rate of women with preschool-age children remains substantially lower than that of men. Carers NI has been clear that inadequacies in social services, healthcare, education and childcare limit many women's ability to work or to progress in their career. It is not simply a women's issue but an economic issue and a question of fairness.

If we are serious about equality, recognition alone is not enough. We must address representation, economic opportunity and safety. International Women's Day should remind us that talent is universal but opportunity is not. It is our responsibility to change that.

Mr Carroll: It is important to speak on the issue. The conversation should be and has been led by women — rightly so — but men have a stake in it and should be interested in standing alongside women and sisters in the fight for women's liberation.

I will make a quick history point. The first international women's day — I may have said this last year — took place in New York in 1909 and was organised by the Socialist Party of America. The left movement — the socialist movement — has always been there in the fight for women's liberation, despite the different views on display today.

As Members have said, it is International Women's Day this weekend. I think that it is important to talk about all women but particularly about the women in my West Belfast constituency, because their lives, their struggles and their resilience deserve some attention. West Belfast is one of the most deprived constituencies on these islands. Poverty runs deep and is very much a political issue. When poverty and deprivation take hold of a community, it is usually women who bear the heaviest burden. They are called the "shock absorbers of poverty". They often skip meals so that their children are fed, sit in a cold house so that the family can stay warm and balance impossible budgets. They do all of that without support from the Executive, who underfund the services on which they depend.

The health inequalities are stark, as has been mentioned. Women in our most deprived areas face significantly worse outcomes in mental health, chronic illness and life expectancy than women in wealthier parts of this city, but, obviously, all women lose out. That is a direct result of decades of underinvestment in working-class communities. We are the only jurisdiction on these islands without a dedicated women's health strategy. As the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone and others said, it takes, on average, almost 10 years for a woman to be diagnosed with endometriosis. If that were an illness that affected men, things would undoubtedly move much more quickly. The Women's Resource and Development Agency (WRDA) research on health inequalities reports that many women feel unheard and dismissed by healthcare professionals.

We have heard that during other debates.

Childcare is another scandal. The cost of childcare in the North remains amongst the highest across these islands. Women are locked out of work and education, because affordable childcare simply does not exist. That is structural inequality, and it demands a structural response that, unfortunately, is not found in the childcare strategy. Childcare should be free, publicly available and universally accessible for women.

I want to mention the women's hostel in my constituency, Regina Coeli, which closed about four years ago. That was a vital refuge in West Belfast for some of the most vulnerable and deprived women who were seeking to escape from violence. There has been no replacement service in West Belfast, and that needs to be addressed.

It is worth reminding ourselves that the far right and those who trumpet far right arguments do not stand up for women and want to divide people with a racist, anti-migrant or anti-other agenda.

I want to finish by talking about women in the community in West Belfast. I pay tribute to all of them: those who are working; those who are not working; those in our schools; those in the Royal Victoria Hospital; and those in all childcare settings across the constituency. We had a Seachtain na Gaeilge event earlier. There would be no Irish language sector in West Belfast without the women in Bóthar Seoigh, Ionad na Fuiseoige, Cultúrlann McAdam Ó Fiaich, Glór na Móna agus na Gaelscoileanna suas agus síos an bóthar.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Gerry.

I call Linda Dillon to make a winding-up speech on the motion. Linda, you have five minutes.

Mrs Dillon: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I thank all the Members who contributed to the debate. I thank our male colleagues who joined us, particularly those who spoke. Gerry has just finished, and he made a very welcome contribution about the women of West Belfast. It is the same for women across this place, but he is right: women in West Belfast probably suffered the most during our conflict and continue to do so now through deprivation.

Many contributors reiterated that progress on increasing women's representation, leadership and equality requires more than just words, and that is absolutely right. It requires concrete actions, resources and accountability — not just today or on International Women's Day, but every day. Many contributors mentioned the women in Iran, Gaza, across the Middle East and across the world who, particularly at this time, are, as Gerry said of the women of West Belfast, "shock absorbers" in wars that, as Emma rightly said, they did not start. They do not want those wars, but unfortunately they suffer the most as a result of them

Emma talked about the need for a cultural shift and leadership. I will be a wee bit biased, because Emma is my colleague in Mid Ulster and I know her really well, but, like many other women in the Chamber, she is a shining example of a young woman who is willing to take on that leadership role. I look at people like Sian and our new female MLAs. It is really important that they are supported. They have given leadership in their communities and in the Assembly. It should be acknowledged that many of the women in the Chamber have given leadership, supported by our male colleagues.

Pam Cameron rightly highlighted the need to improve childcare provision and provide better healthcare. A number of Members mentioned that. Women's healthcare, including endometriosis care, has been neglected, but for good reason: there were not enough women in leadership positions. Health was an entire area in which all research was done by men for men. That was the reality. Even research on menopause treatments was done by men on men, which is absolutely unbelievable. I noticed that the Health Minister made his way down here to support his female colleague when she was speaking, and that is really important. I hope that our Health Minister listens to the issues that have been raised in this debate to mark International Women's Day.

Paula mentioned the need for resource to tackle violence against women and girls. She said that we need to dismantle the structural barriers and that, whilst we have to celebrate, we also have to reflect. That reflection must include thinking about ending violence against women and girls. We talk about it a lot, and it is at the forefront of everybody's minds.

It concerns me that every time that we talk about it, I feel that we are going backwards instead of forwards, and that is really concerning. It is an issue that people have a focus on, and while they have a focus on it, let us move it forward, but we need the cultural change that Emma spoke about right across our community. That change and that leadership need to start in the Chamber. How we talk about women and how we talk to women is where we will make the real change.

Diana, you acknowledged that you are the sole female UUP MLA, but, in fairness, you acknowledged that you get support from women across the Chamber and from your male colleagues. That is only right.

We, as a caucus, aim to work collectively to create change to use our voices to empower one another and encourage other women to step forward into political life. Sometimes, that is difficult because you are trying to convince women to do something, but if you were to get the opportunity again, you wonder whether you would put yourself forward. However, I will say this: it is a difficult job; you need support from the people around you. That means us supporting other women coming into the Chamber, regardless of whether they are Members of our party or whether we agree with them politically. We have a role to make sure that they feel supported to be in the Chamber, in other Chambers and in positions of leadership right across our community. That includes the public sector and not just elected representatives, but members of boards and right across our public sector.

At our recent conference, 'Supporting Women in Public Life, we had the opportunity to engage with female leaders across the voluntary, public and private sectors. It is really important that we have that joined-up approach because we need to see women in every possible sector of life right across our communities. I am going to be cut off by the Principal Deputy Speaker, but I thank everybody who contributed today. It is important that we speak today in the lead up to International Women's Day and that we support each other every day as women.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Linda, and I thank everybody who participated in the debate.

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

Mr Martin: 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 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes.

Mr Martin: Eating disorders are a serious and complex mental illness. In the United Kingdom, 1·25 million people are currently living with an eating disorder. When we bring that to Northern Ireland, it is 37,000 individuals. Those are not statistics, although they sound like them. They are people: friends, family members and colleagues who are affected by an illness that, very often, in the early stages, is hidden. My party's reason for tabling the motion was to raise awareness of the illness and to call for better and, in particular, earlier support.

It is important to remember that eating disorders do not discriminate. They affect people of all ages, sexes, ethnicities, backgrounds and political opinions. No community is immune. Eating disorders reach into homes, schools, workplaces and social circles, leaving significant trails of impact as they go. Tragically, they carry some of the highest preventable mortality rates of any mental illness. Anorexia has the highest mortality rate of any mental health condition, and research indicates that one in six people with a binge-eating disorder has attempted to end their life. Those figures remind us that eating disorders are not lifestyle choices or phases but real illnesses that require recognition, compassion, understanding and effective treatment.

There is also an important message of hope. Recovery is possible. With the right treatment and support, people recover from eating disorders. Early intervention is absolutely key, however, and, as we know — the Health Minister definitely knows it — is more cost-effective for the health service. When individuals are able to access specialist support, their chances of recovery increase significantly. Unfortunately, that is not everyone's experience. Many individuals face long delays before they get the help that they need. On average, those who access treatment experience a gap of about three years from the onset of their eating disorder until the start of their treatment. Some of that delay is down to the fact that they need to be diagnosed and that that process is quite complicated, but those are the figures. The delays are quite common, and the illness can become significantly more entrenched during the time of the delay, with the suffering experienced by individuals and their family deepening and the need for more intensive, invasive and often more costly interventions increasing. In many cases, hospital admissions follow, putting additional pressure on the health service, and, for that matter, on the individuals' loved ones.

Last week was Eating Disorder Awareness Week. I hope that that, along with the motion, increases public awareness and reminds people that there is help out there, so that, if they are concerned about themselves or a family member, they can reach out.

The debate is not politically contentious. If it were, the Benches would be full and we would be getting ready to shout at each other across the Chamber and disagree, politically, on some issues. That is not the case. There will be people watching today, including some who have been in contact with me, who are looking to us, especially to the Minister, to give them hope. Families and carers play a crucial role in recovery, and supporting someone with an eating disorder can be emotionally exhausting and very isolating, as I know at first hand.

Action 29(d) of the mental health strategy 2021-2031 sets out an ambitious vision for improving eating disorder services and specialist treatments. The vision includes supporting services to provide specialist treatment for patients who present with eating disorders, including those with mild to moderate conditions, without unnecessary delay. The strategy outlines plans to develop talking therapy hubs and:

as well as improving clinical consultation and providing support for inpatient units that manage high-risk patients with eating disorders. All those measures recognise the simple but critical point that early and effective community treatment is essential.

There have been many improvements in planning and service coordination. The deliverability review of the mental health strategy, which was published in October 2025, noted that the strategic planning and performance group (SPPG) had completed an outline business case for a regional eating disorder service, which is awaiting a financial review. I will come back to that at the end of my remarks. In addition to that, the recently launched managed care network for eating disorders represents an important step forward and there is encouraging political engagement through the all-party group (APG) on eating disorders and disordered eating. I chair that APG, and some of its members are here today. The APG recognises that this is an illness that affects everyone and it will seek to bring focus to the issue.

All positive progress should be recognised, but challenges do remain. Research suggests that one in six children and young people is showing a pattern of disordered eating. Furthermore, the population of eating disorder admissions to the general adolescent inpatient unit tripled between 2019 and 2024. It is by no means exclusive to them, but many of those are young girls. Those trends underline the urgency of action. At the time that the mental health strategy was published, it was acknowledged that securing the necessary funding would be challenging and would likely need collaboration across government. I recognise that, and I also recognise and note the support that the Minister of Health has shown. Over the past 18 months, the Minister and his departmental officials have engaged with key stakeholders, including the charity Beat and clinical experts in the field. It would be wrong of me not to note that.

I have to reflect, however, that my personal experience of supporting a young girl 10 years ago was very different. When I was doing that, there was very patchy clinical support, and often the expertise was very far away, maybe in London or Liverpool. It was very far away from the home network that that young lady relied on. Mary, who was in her early 20s, ended up experiencing a very mixed bag of clinical and consultant care. Thankfully, Mary's story is one that is redemptive. She recovered, she beat her illness and she is now helping others to do the same. However, so many of the friends that she met in hospitals and other units died. We saw their obituaries on Facebook. Last week, there was a celebration of 20 years of the eating disorder service in Northern Ireland. I have to be very honest and say that my personal experience of walking with a young lady through that service is not something that I would choose to celebrate. We cannot place that on the Minister, but I thought, as I attended that meeting, that my experience was very different.

I believe that, in order to make progress, we need to set a clear time frame. Of course, Minister, I am talking about the business case to enhance the regional eating disorder service. People living with eating disorders and their families cannot afford indefinite delays. Timely decisions will help to translate plans and strategies into real care. The Minister cannot be held accountable for Mary's experience of the service 10 years ago, but we do encourage him to take steps now — actions that will improve the service for young girls and boys now and for those coming in the future. We cannot change the past, as we all know in this Chamber, but we can shape the future to be better than the past. Today I ask you, Minister, what the timescale is for the business case. I am sure that it is there in your lines. Do you believe that you will be able to sign it off in the current mandate?

In closing, eating disorders are serious, complex and often hidden illnesses, but recovery is possible. The key is early intervention, and lying behind that are effective services, supportive communities and sustained commitment from policymakers. All of that combined can make a difference and perhaps lead to a redemptive story such as Mary's. I hope that we can achieve that. I thank everyone for coming and being part of the debate, and I urge Members to support the motion.

Ms Flynn: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion to mark Eating Disorders Awareness Week. I thank the chair of the all-party group and the other DUP Members who tabled the motion. Nicola Armstrong and the team at the Beat support group have done some fantastic work. I apologise that I have not made it to any of the APG meetings. The group is relatively new.

Mr Martin: You are forgiven. It is OK.

Ms Flynn: I intend to support you in your work. Fair play, and thank you.

As has been said, eating disorders are among the most serious and complex mental health conditions that people face. In moving the motion, Peter made the point that some of those conditions carry the highest mortality rate of any mental illness. I think that that is really worrying. When you hear that spoken about, you think about the issues that we talk about: mental health and mental illness and all the issues around substance use and suicide and all the terrible illnesses that people go through.

When you read that line about eating disorders, however, you think that many people might take that fact for granted. We are talking about a condition that carries the highest mortality rate of any mental illness. That line in itself gave me a sense of the seriousness of the issue.

The mover of the motion spoke about his experience of supporting a young girl in her 20s who was going through a battle with an eating disorder. As with many things to do with mental health and probably health more generally, unless you have had direct experience of helping one of your constituents with an issue or have lived experience through a family member, a friend or personally, you cannot really understand the issue. Hopefully, that line brings to bear on Members who have not had direct experience of an eating disorder just how serious the issue is.

I have a family member who battled an eating disorder at a very young age. Although he is doing much better now, thankfully, you can see how he carries the scars of dealing with the heavy burden of such a condition. Sadly, it is mostly younger people and, as the mover of the motion said, particularly young girls who are battling with such issues. That is sad because a legacy definitely remains: even if someone gets past the eating disorder and recovers, they definitely carry the scars of dealing with that burden for the rest of their life. I had that bit of lived experience through that family member.

I go back to one of the stark statistics that came out of the research that we did when we were preparing to respond to the motion. It was something that I was not aware of until earlier this week. The motion rightly highlights the fact that as many as 37,500 people here might be living with an eating disorder. That is a massive number and shows the challenge that we are dealing with. That is a hell of a lot of people battling the condition. Hopefully, that will bring some urgency to getting the timeline for the business case, as well as the fact that it is an extremely serious issue in that it puts someone's life in danger.

I want to touch on the sad reality of how many children and young people the condition affects. Kids are already dealing with the desperate reality of social media and all the nonsense on the internet about the false sense of what a child's body should look like. That has an impact on the number of children and young people who pick up an eating disorder. The mover of the motion mentioned a figure of one in six, which is extremely serious.

I had a speech typed out, but I wanted to pick out some of the stark things that I took away from the Members who tabled the motion and their remarks that I wanted to touch on. The situation is extremely dangerous, so, hopefully, the motion can bring some good, and the Minister might have some good feedback for us when he responds to the debate.

Mr Donnelly: First, I thank Mr Martin for bringing this important issue for debate here. Last week, during Eating Disorders Awareness Week, I spoke about the issues that we face in Northern Ireland and the campaign led by the eating disorder charity Beat. It focused on the importance of community, which is very relevant to how the issue is treated.

I have spoken to a local eating disorder team and heard about their workforce and funding pressures, which result in very long waiting lists for people suffering from those conditions. It is a life-saving service, and it needs to be strengthened and enhanced. As we heard, as many as 37,500 people in Northern Ireland could have an eating disorder, and the proportion of eating disorder admissions to the general adolescent inpatient unit has tripled since 2019, I believe; yet there is not one eating disorder youth service team per trust.

Those figures, while shocking, do not paint the full picture. How could they, when regional adult eating disorder services are commissioned to treat only anorexia, bulimia and atypical presentations of these conditions? How can we truly understand the scale of the problem when the service is designed around only part of it? The data collected does not begin to capture the full reality. If we cannot properly analyse the need, how can we fix it?

Eating disorders are serious mental illnesses with high mortality rates, and they affect people of every age, gender and background. I recently read an article detailing the experience of a lady named Claire who suffered with disordered eating. Hers was an eye-opening account of the real-life consequences that that can have. She spoke about how, as long as she was getting thinner, she could cope with the fact that her world was closing in around her. She described her condition as a "lonely and ritualistic existence". Her morning weigh-in was "sacred". Friends fell away. School became a struggle. When the vomiting stopped working as a weight-loss method, she began to starve herself. At 17, she was living on around 60 calories a day, consumed by thoughts of food and fear.

On the surface, stories such as Claire's can appear to confirm the assumption that eating disorders are about weight and appearance. When you look more deeply, however, you see a need for control, a longing for acceptance and a difficulty in processing complex emotions. You can see an illness that runs far deeper than a number on a scale.

Another example is that of Daniel Collins, the champion rower from Derry, who has spoken publicly about his experience of disordered eating and described years of cycling between restriction and bingeing, driven by body dysmorphia and a deeply held belief that he needed to be as lean as possible in order to succeed. As a young man, he assumed that eating disorders were a women's issue. That misconception and the stigma attached to it delayed his seeking help when early intervention could have made a significant difference. It was only after engaging with the Western Health and Social Care Trust's specialist eating disorder service that he began to understand the patterns that underpinned his behaviour and access structured, evidence-based support. His experience illustrates two important points: first, that eating disorders can affect anyone, including male athletes, who can appear from the outside to embody physical strength and resilience; and, secondly, that stigma and misunderstanding remain real barriers to timely intervention. In Daniel's words:

His renewed relationship with food and training has enabled him to compete at a national and international level. That outcome is not incidental. When specialist services are available and accessible, they do not simply prevent deterioration but enable individuals to regain stability and fulfil their potential. Conversely, when access is limited or delayed, we risk having not only poor health outcomes but a loss of talent, opportunity and well-being.

Claire and Daniel were able to seek help in Northern Ireland, but what about someone with binge eating disorder? Binge eating disorder is one of the most common eating disorders across the UK, yet it does not fall within the remit of specialist eating disorder services in Northern Ireland. Individuals are instead referred to general mental health services, and the Department of Health has confirmed that it does not collate data on the prevalence of binge eating disorder here, nor is there a current review of its treatment pathway. That means that we are planning services without a complete understanding of need or a clear strategic approach to one of its most prevalent presentations.

We know that inpatient treatment should be a last resort but should be available when needed; that the treatment model should be family-based, in the community, as per NICE guidelines; and that the funding has to go to community teams provision in order to prevent inpatient admission. As we have heard, recovery is possible. Early identification, timely referral and access to appropriately commissioned specialist care can change trajectories. Such measures save lives, reduce long-term harm and restore opportunity.

Mr Chambers: I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important motion. Such debates really help build better political and public understanding of what are often complex and devastating illnesses. The debate, along with the recent publicity surrounding Eating Disorders Awareness Week, will, I hope, make it a bit easier for our young people and adults who struggle with food to come forward for help. There is no shame in it, and, as MLAs, we must all work to eradicate any stigma.

One of the most sobering lines in the motion concerns the rise in the number of admissions:

That should give us pause for thought.

While I welcome the fact that some stabilisation has occurred following the immediate post-pandemic surge in mental health presentations, the figures show that we have a very real and significant problem. Each admission represents a young person in real distress. Quite often, an admission represents a family in crisis, and I have witnessed the distress that families suffer.

Eating disorders remain among the most serious mental health conditions. Sadly, they also have one of the highest mortality rates of any psychiatric illness. Early identification and timely intervention are critical if we are to improve the long-term outcomes. That is why I have long been a believer that, when it comes to such issues, the emphasis must be on preventing crisis, rather than on simply responding to it. Thankfully, structured work has been done to strengthen services. The establishment of the regional eating disorder managed care network was a positive step in ensuring more consistent pathways, stronger workforce capability and better use of data across Northern Ireland. The development of a strategic framework and implementation plan signals an intent to move from aspiration to delivery, and, critically, to improve the work of both statutory and voluntary partners in shaping that journey. Community-based care must be central to that approach. As in so many other instances, treatment that is delivered closer to home can reduce escalation to inpatient settings. That is not only clinically appropriate but often exactly what service users and families want.

However, we cannot ignore the finding of the Department's mental health strategy deliverability review. Significant financial pressures have constrained progress, including on the development of specialist eating disorder services. That is a reality facing every Stormont Department. In Health, the real-life consequences are often felt much more deeply, but, as the Minister has said before, financial pressures should not be an automatic impediment to progress.

We can see what progress and reform looks like. In recent years, England has expanded community eating disorder teams for children and young people, working towards clearer waiting times, higher standards and earlier intervention models. Wales and Scotland have, similarly, increased emphasis on community-based, intensive support and strengthened clinical networks. The trajectory across the UK has been towards earlier access, specialist expertise and reduced reliance on hospital admission. That provides us, on this side of the Irish Sea, with both encouragement and a benchmark. In that context, I am happy to support the call for a clear time frame. The very least that anyone in Northern Ireland who has an eating disorder deserves is a commitment that they should be able to access the care that they need at the time that they need it.

Families can feel hopeless when their family member has an eating disorder. I have seen such cases. To the families, I say this: there is hope for everyone.

Mr McGrath: It goes to the power of these sorts of awareness weeks that we are able to have debates that allow us the opportunity to raise the profile of important issues. Often, they are on issues that are not spoken about in our community, so it gives us the chance to amplify awareness of the various conditions and provide a beacon of support for people who are suffering from them. Whilst this is a Chamber in which there are deeply political debates — I think of debates that took place here just a few hours ago — I am glad that, when it comes to debates like this on issues that are deeply personal for people, we are always able to switch and get the right tone.

Recently, I was contacted by a young person in my constituency who said something about eating disorders that I will never be able to forget:

Young people do not even get educated about eating disorders in school. Imagine being a young person who has a condition that is just not spoken about. It must be really difficult to deal with that, never mind the fact that you have an issue that you would like to get some help with.

The statistics that have been referenced are nearly as stark as the fact that we do not talk about the issue enough. There could be 37,500 people with an eating disorder. That is the population of a large town. Imagine going into a big town and knowing that every single person who lives there has an eating condition. If we had those numbers in one place, we would do something about it, but because those affected are spread out and the issue is kept behind closed doors, people feel a sense of isolation. It almost becomes hidden, which compounds the difficulties that people face.

We know that one in six young people has an eating disorder. One in six. Admissions for eating disorders to the general adolescent inpatient unit nearly tripled between 2019 and 2024, which is a frightening escalation. We all know how quickly a mandate can go by, but if we do not do something about the situation and admissions continue to triple in such a period of time, we will lose control of it.

The mental health strategy was costed at £1·2 billion over 10 years, but during 2024 and 2025, only £12·3 million was allocated — just 16% of what was deemed necessary for one year. We are going to miss the target 84% of the time because of the spend that we direct to the strategy and to our response to many other issues that impact most people in our society in some form but especially our young people. We cannot pretend that that statistic does not have some form of consequence. We may have to deal with the health consequences, but people have to deal with the mental health consequences for their families and their communities. There will also be issues when it comes to education and employment. If we do not invest money and deal with the issues in one place, we will end up spending money dealing with them in other places whilst putting those affected through the trauma of getting to the solution.

Eating disorders are not lifestyle choices as some people might think. They are not phases; they are serious mental illnesses with the highest mortality rates of any psychiatric condition. They distort self-perception, damage the body, isolate the individual and devastate families.

I acknowledge that the motion is not about criticism for the sake of it; it is about trying to get something done urgently. When the Minister responds, I hope that he recognises that this is not about people coming at him from all angles to criticise the Department or the Executive; it is about the sense of urgency that exists to fix the situation. If there are 37,500 people in our community who are impacted, we need to get something done.

To anyone who is watching the debate, I say this: you are not weak, you are not vain and you are not beyond help. Support exists; please reach out for it.

Mr McGuigan: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I thank the Members who tabled the motion, and for the work that Peter and others do in the APG.

Eating Disorders Awareness Week has just concluded, and it has brought to light powerful lived experiences, testimonies and accounts. Some accounts have been shared during the debate, and while we can often talk about the abstract of illness, the lived experiences and testimonies put a focus on the seriousness of the illness and its impact on those who suffer with it.

In advance of the debate, I flicked through some accounts of the illness. I read the story of Anna-Louise, a talented young videographer, which was in last Friday's 'Belfast Telegraph'. I also read the contribution by Oran, a talented Gaelic footballer from Steelstown who played for Derry, in last week's 'Irish News'. They are both talented young people who opened up about their personal battles. Thankfully, both young people have recovered from their eating disorders, because, as others have clearly and correctly pointed out, not everybody who suffers from an eating disorder is lucky enough to recover.

As Danny said, this illness can affect anyone. Whilst it may be the case that young females are particularly affected, it is not an illness that occurs among just young females; it can happen to anybody, regardless of their circumstances.

The personal testimonies that we heard in the debate along with those that we have read in newspapers and heard on the airwaves this week, combined with the scale of the need for services and the concerning rise in eating disorders among adolescents, as identified in the motion, and the evidence presented by the charity Beat — I think that all Members have been using a briefing that we got from Beat, because it clearly condenses what we are talking about — serve to underline the urgent need to progress the enhancement of the regional eating disorder service.

Beat has highlighted the fact that eating disorders are profoundly isolating conditions that often lead individuals to withdraw from social situations, making it difficult for them to articulate what they are experiencing and equally difficult for others to recognise the severity of their illness. That is why, as others have said, awareness weeks and debates such as this are important. It is about people in positions such as ours shining a light on the issue and taking the argument out into the public. I commend Beat for providing a voice and a vital source of support, through its advocacy and policy work, and acknowledge all who have spoken publicly about their personal experiences in an effort to raise awareness, inform the development of future services and highlight the need for education. I am struck by what Colin said about the issue not being part of schoolchildren's education. There are so many pitfalls out there for our young people, and it is important that such things are conveyed in the school setting.

The Department sets out a clear and ambitious plan to strengthen eating disorder provision in its mental health strategy. Action 29(d) commits to timely specialist treatment for all patients, appropriately skilled staffing, the development of talking therapy hubs, intensive day treatment facilities in line with NICE guidance and improved clinical support for inpatient units and high-risk cases. What I will say about progress on the strategy could apply to any of our strategies. We have so many good strategies in the Department of Health. Unfortunately, through constraints on budgetary resources, they are not all implemented. That is certainly the case with the mental health strategy, on which progress has been slow. By the end of 2024-25, only £12·3 million had been allocated, and only 14 actions — just 16% of the strategy — had been funded as required for that period.

Underinvestment combined with persistent workforce shortages has resulted in delayed diagnosis, limited treatment pathways and, in some cases, people having to travel significant distances to access specialist care that should be available closer to home. Today's motion calls on the Minister of Health:

We should all get behind and support that aim. The service must be one that ensures that patients receive the right care at the right time, in the right place and as close to home as possible. It must include meaningful support for families and carers, whose role is vital.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, you have up to 15 minutes.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I thank Mr Martin for tabling the motion and for his work with the all-party group. I can only imagine the emotions involved in watching a loved one whose life is shaped or dominated —

Mr Martin: Yes, dominated.

Mr Nesbitt: — by an eating disorder.

Last week, I was pleased to take part in an event, upstairs in the Building, to mark Eating Disorders Awareness Week, not least because the theme was "Community". In the remaining year and two days between now and purdah, I want as much of my work as possible to be community-based, as we roll out the neighbourhood model of care, which, I hope, will transform the delivery of health and social care.

As the Chair of the Committee said, a specific action in the mental health strategy, 29(d), is dedicated to strengthening our response to eating disorders, which is an area that continues to require focused attention, innovation and investment. I will come to investment before I finish my remarks.

Eating disorders are among the most serious mental health conditions. Research shows that individuals with an eating disorder have a mortality rate seven times higher than that of the general population. Worldwide, about 7·8% of people will experience an eating disorder in their lifetime.

Here in Northern Ireland, data is available for only individuals who receive a diagnosis, so we can conclude from that that the true prevalence is likely to be higher. That stark reality underlines the importance of ensuring that our services are robust, accessible and evidence-based. In line with action 29(d), the regional eating disorder managed care network was established last year to drive improvement. The network brings together statutory, community and voluntary partners to deliver equitable, high-quality care right across the region. By standardising care pathways, strengthening workforce capability and improving outcome monitoring, the network supports care that is efficient, accountable and aligned with best practice.

Some Members have made reference to the GB charity Beat, which deals with eating disorders. A few weeks ago, its chief executive, Vanessa Longley, was upstairs at another event in room 115 and surprised me by saying that we are leading the way across the UK. We are, to an extent, trailblazers in the work that we are doing. However, having said that, I acknowledge that there is more work to be done.

On 23 February, as part of the awareness week, I launched here in Parliament Buildings the strategic framework and three-year implementation plan for the network. The plan sets out a clear collaborative approach to enhancing community eating disorder services, with strong representation from community and voluntary organisations on the implementation group and its work streams, with many actions being delivered with low or no cost. There are four strategic areas that are being addressed by the managed care network. The first is communication and training on reducing stigma and raising awareness. The second is access to services and workforce. That seeks to align care pathways regionally, embedding evidence-based models and supporting our workforce through the development of specialist skills. The third is research, data and outcomes, building academic partnerships and using meaningful data to drive improvement and monitor treatment outcomes. Finally, co-design and co-production, ensuring that lived experience shapes every stage of service design and delivery.

A key priority for the network's access to services and workforce is the review of the You in Mind care pathway for the treatment of eating disorders from 2016. It includes a renewed focus on community-based care, which is vital in ensuring earlier intervention, reduced reliance on inpatient treatment and better long-term outcomes. Community-based care is widely recognised as one of the most effective ways to support individuals who are living with eating disorders, offering treatment that is timely, person-centred and aligned with everyday life. Eating disorders rarely occur in isolation; they take root in social contexts, family systems and community environments. For that reason, treatment approaches that extend beyond hospital settings can often lead to improved engagement, earlier intervention and better long-term recovery outcomes.

Mr Martin: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Nesbitt: Yes.

Mr Martin: I love a Minister who gives way. It is always very exciting.

Does the Minister agree — I suspect that he does — that his strategy of shift left, or, as I call it, earlier intervention, not only delivers better outcomes for the people whom the illness affects but is more cost-effective for the health service?

Mr Nesbitt: Absolutely. Those are the two objectives of shifting left into a neighbourhood model of care. There will be better outcomes for patients, and it will also be much easier on the budget because, by the time that we treat people who have lingered on a waiting list for three, four, five, six or seven years, we have to treat them in an acute hospital, where all the really expensive procedures take place. Community care enables services to respond earlier and more flexibly. For many individuals, concerns emerge long before the need for hospital treatment.

By strengthening community pathways such as GP awareness, early intervention teams, mental health hubs and voluntary sector supports, we can identify difficulties at the earliest possible stage. That will help to prevent deterioration, avoid crisis-driven referrals and reduce the pressure on acute inpatient settings, as the Member said. Early intervention is consistently shown to improve recovery rates, shorten treatment duration and reduce the likelihood of relapse.

I stress that eating disorders cause real distress for service users and their families and friends, and every admission is one too many. It is true that CAMHS admissions rose sharply after the COVID-19 pandemic, but they have since returned to roughly pre-pandemic levels. Nonetheless, I remain committed to strengthening early intervention and community support so that timely, effective care is available for every child, young person and adult who needs it.

The mental health strategy states clearly that additional investment is required to develop services in line with NICE guidance, including the establishment of intensive day-treatment options. Unfortunately, the deliverability review has highlighted the extent to which funding constraints have limited progress across the strategy, including in eating disorder services.

I acknowledge the motion's call for a:

I say this to Members: the business case has, in fact, been partially funded already. A part-time regional clinical lead, a social care lead and a project manager for the regional eating disorder managed care network were all appointed in late 2024, and they have established that managed care network. However, completing the business case depends on funding.

The business case costings in full are £3,483,439. If I discount the recurrent moneys of just over £1 million that have already gone into the part implementation, the additional funding required for the full business case stands at £2,396,439. I know that, in the great scheme of things, Members may think that that is not a huge amount of money out of a budget of over £8 billion, but Members will also be aware that at least once a week — I am in here most sitting weeks, if not every sitting week — I am asked to prioritise and invest in something. The money does not exist. The shortfall that we are currently projecting for next year will be in the order of £800-plus million. It was £600-plus million this year. We failed to balance that, and we needed nearly £200 million from the reserves in the form of a Treasury loan to get us close to balancing the books. I have to be honest with Members: it will be a challenge. When we finalise the budget, the first thing that I will do is pay for the 3·3% uplift for Agenda for Change staff. We do not know yet what the Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration will offer, but I will seek to implement that in full. The real living wage also has to be implemented right across Health and Social Care. All I can say to the Member is that, after that, this issue will be very much on the agenda when considering how to spend what is left in the budget.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Minister. I call Diane Dodds to make a winding-up speech on the motion.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Like many across the Chamber, I am grateful for the tone and supportive nature of the debate on the issue. As my colleague Peter Martin reflected, it is not a contentious issue, but it is important, and it is important to shine a light on it. It is not often that it gets such prominence, and I am glad that we have been able to shine a light on such a significant issue.

One of the stats that really brings it home to us is that the mortality rate among individuals with an eating disorder is seven times higher than that among other people with a severe mental illness. That is a really significant stat that many of us perhaps do not realise or acknowledge in debates about the prevention of suicide and other issues that are prevalent. It has been a really good and supportive debate, and it is important that we shine a light on the issue.

During the debate, I was very much struck by an issue that was raised by Colin McGrath — yes, Colin, you. He mentioned that a young person said that they do not talk about eating disorders in school. Maybe we do not talk about those things enough so that young people understand the dangers and, sometimes, the hidden and lonely journey that people may be on.

It is therefore extremely important that we have had this debate.

Minister, I will refer to a couple of things that you and other Members raised, one of which is the implementation of the mental health strategy, particularly the community element to treating eating disorders. I think that every party in the Chamber supports you in your ambition to shift left and to provide care closer to home and acknowledges that those measures will be not only more effective but less costly for the health service. I do not think that there is any real debate to be had about that among political parties here, but we do want to see it done in a coordinated and ordered way that people will understand. When looking at some of the stats in preparation for the debate, I was struck by the fact that 29(d) in the mental health strategy mentions talking therapy hubs and intensive day treatment facilities that are in line with NICE guidelines and that would fulfil the ambition of bringing care closer to home.

The Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust's eating disorder intensive service demonstrates that very well. Between April 2022 and March 2024, the service treated 78% of patients who were assessed as being at risk of a specialist eating disorder and inpatient admission, yet only 13 of those patients — 17% — ended up requiring inpatient admission. Surely that is an indication of how really good community services can help prevent people being admitted to hospital and instead bring care for people closer to their own communities and closer to their families. They are also much more cost-effective, but, more importantly, they are much more effective in aiding people's recovery from their illness. When we are considering how to move forward, such provision is one element that we would like the Department to consider substantially. We would also like it to consider establishing services that mean that children, young people and adults do not have to travel outside of Northern Ireland, away from their families, to receive treatment. That is hugely important.

Minister, I am encouraged by what you said about the partial implementation of the business case for enhancing the regional eating disorder service and about the leads who have been appointed to the regional eating disorder managed care network. I note that you said that you need roughly £2·5 million for the full business case. I encourage you to find some way of finding that money so that we can drive forward. That is important.

Another issue that strikes me is something that will not fill the House with clamorous voices, but it is one that is important for the delivery of services that are tailored to meet need, and that is the data that we have on eating disorders. For many years, people who are diagnosed with an eating disorder have received their diagnosis during an emergency in a hospital setting. That is how most of the data is captured, but that ignores the level below, which is people with mild to moderate eating disorders. Data is not captured on them. I therefore emphasise the fact that we cannot design and deliver services that are effective and that meet the needs of people in our communities if we do not have the data that will help us do so.

Again, that is hugely important. We had a debate on data and the provision of mental health services a couple of weeks ago. On this specific issue, it is really important that we capture relevant data more accurately so that we can design services that meet the need.

In finishing, I want to talk about social media. We talk a lot about banning social media, and I notice that the UK Government have announced a consultation on social media for those aged under 16. Social media is really important in relation to people who are at risk of developing eating disorders. We could respond to the consultation by highlighting the harmful, almost pro-anorexia content that sometimes circulates on social media: there could be more bans and restrictions on that. It is sometimes subtle and sometimes not subtle at all, but it definitely impacts on very many people.

I thank everyone for the tone of the debate. That is really important. If I did not mention you, it is simply that I did not have the time. Alan Chambers made a contribution about the stigma involved with mental health issues, particularly eating disorders. We need to help people get over that stigma. We should be able to talk about the issue, and I hope that the debate has, in some way, helped with that.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed, ladies and gentlemen, for the tone of the debate and how it was conducted.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): We will take our ease for a moment or two.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Speaker has received notice from the Minister of Finance that he wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that they must be concise in asking their questions. This is not an opportunity for debate, and long introductions will not be allowed.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): Thank you for the opportunity to update Members on the Chancellor’s spring forecast. The forecast set out that the Executive will receive an additional £390 million over the next three years, £380 million of which is resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) funding, with £9 million in capital. The majority of the resource DEL funding — £361·2 million — follows a decision taken in Whitehall earlier this month, when the British Government announced a £5?billion package to help to address the debts that local councils in England had built up in recent years in providing special educational needs (SEN) support. The remaining £17 million resource DEL is from decisions taken in respect of business rates.

Ahead of the spring forecast, I wrote to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury seeking clarity on the funding, particularly as special educational needs costs continue to rise and have become a significant contributor to the financial pressures facing the Executive. It was important that there was parity of treatment. Therefore, I welcome confirmation today that the Executive will receive funding from the announcement. The funding is primarily resource DEL, with £9 million in capital funding over the three-year period. The breakdown of the resource DEL funding is as follows: an additional £227·8 million in 2026-27; £5·6 million in 2027-28; and £144·9 million in 2028-29.

As Members will be aware, following negotiations, the Treasury has recognised the significant challenges facing the Executive, as well as the savings realised in 2025-26, and has agreed to provide the Executive with a reserve claim of £400 million resource DEL in 2025-26. That is repayable over three years: £80 million in 2026-27; £160 million in 2027-28; and £160 million in 2028-29.

While the additional funding is welcome and will provide assistance to the Executive, the reality is that severe pressures on the Executive’s finances remain. The loss of the £520 million stabilisation funding provided by the restoration package in 2024-25 and 2025-26 has made delivering front-line public services and balancing the Budget an impossible task. As demand for public services has grown, as witnessed in SEN provision and healthcare for the elderly, so has the cost of delivering the services that our people rightly expect and deserve. The delivery ambitions of Departments substantially exceed the funding available both for resource and capital budgets many times over. There remains a significant and unsustainable gap between our ambitions and the resources at our disposal. Addressing that disparity to provide sustainable services into the future will require adequate funding from Westminster for public services, as well as substantive reform and meaningful transformation in how we design and deliver our public services. I continue to make the case to the British Government regarding the restoration of the stabilisation fund to help stabilise public services and bring about the transformation of those services to make them fit for now and the future.

To strengthen our case for fairer funding for public services, the Executive are working with Treasury to review the Executive’s spending and pressures through an open-book review of departmental spending. That will support a fuller understanding of the significant challenges that we face. It is intended that the exercise will be completed by mid-March, with the outcome of the process supporting the Executive in their efforts to agree a multi-year Budget. The review will also inform wider discussions on Budget sustainability and negotiations on the fiscal framework.

While significant challenges remain, it is essential that the Executive grasp the opportunity presented now to set a multi-year Budget. The consultation on the multi-year Budget closes today. As of lunchtime today, over 300 responses had been received. I thank those who have contributed to the consultation. It is important that the views of our citizens, business and communities are heard as we work together to find solutions and deliver a multi-year Budget that makes the best possible use of the limited resources available.

In parallel to the consultation, I have been continuing to engage with Executive colleagues. I will continue to work in partnership with Executive colleagues in the time ahead, including looking collectively at how we prioritise the funding available, including the additional funding announced today.

A multi-year Budget will provide Departments and public-sector organisations with certainty and the ability to make long-term plans. It will enable strategic investment that delivers lasting benefits for our economy, our environment and our society. I remain committed to working in partnership with my ministerial colleagues to find a way forward on the multi-year Budget in order to enable strategic investment that delivers lasting benefits for workers, families and businesses. I remain committed to continuing to engage with the Treasury to bring about a fairer funding outcome for workers, families and businesses.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, thank you for coming to the Chamber to give us this statement. It is welcome and prompt, and you are to be commended for that. It is important to say, Minister, that most of us were not expecting such a volume of funding. The public will be looking on, and, while many of us agree that we need a different funding model overall and that this place should be funded differently in devolved terms, many of those people will say that, although we are getting another £200 million-plus next year, you have come to the Chamber to tell us that that is still not enough. That feels like a strategic communications decision on your part, rather than you taking real responsibility. I therefore ask you, Minister, to take real responsibility in the next financial year, given that you now have £200 million-plus in RDEL.

Your colleagues heard from the community and voluntary sector last week, and I met representatives of Action Mental Health. They, along with others in the community and voluntary sector, have said that £15 million will help such organisations to deal with the costs —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call the Minister to reply. Thank you.

Mr O'Toole: — imposed by the British Government on the local growth fund. Will you make the commitment that you find that money?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): No long introductions.

Mr O'Toole: It is important, Mr Deputy Speaker. Minister, will you find that money next year?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr O'Toole, it is also important that you respect the Chair and the instruction that was given earlier about long introductions and lengthy questions. Minister.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, will you find that money for the community and voluntary sector?

Mr O'Dowd: If one thing has been proven today, it is that the allegation of financial mismanagement that has been thrown at the Executive by Mr O'Toole and some commentators has been blown out of the water. The British Government had to bail out their own councils to the tune of £5 billion because they had been historically underfunded and unable to deliver against the pressures that they face in areas such as SEN. The Executive face similar pressures in relation to SEN and a number of other areas of Health, as well as issues related to other Departments. Let us knock the nonsense about financial mismanagement on the head. I thought that we had agreed last week to stop being spokespeople for the NIO, and that the Executive parties would work in a collegiate and collaborative manner with everyone in the Chamber to put a strong case to Westminster that it needs to properly fund this place in order to allow the Executive to deliver public services and the transformation that is so badly needed in a range of areas.

To answer the Member's specific question, there will be many demands on the funding, which will be included in the multi-year Budget. It will be for the Executive to decide on the final outcome of the multi-year Budget and how and where funds are allocated. The Member is again making a technical error. The responsibility for the underfunding of the local growth fund rests fairly and squarely with the British Government. Do not be diverted from that message.

Mr O'Toole: I said that. It is about what we do —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Diane Forsythe.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for coming to the Chamber so quickly following the announcement by Treasury; we appreciate that. Minister, whilst the Secretary of State may urge some celebration of there being more money for Northern Ireland, that money does not address the deficit, nor does it provide us with the necessary long-term, structured help. You said that the open-book exercise will be completed in the next couple of weeks. Minister, do you expect that that will result in recognition of the longer-term need for increased sustainable funding for Northern Ireland?

Mr O'Dowd: The open-book process gives us a great opportunity to show the Treasury and others the huge challenges that the Executive face in delivering front-line public services. As I said to Mr O'Toole, the very fact that the Government have had to bail out their own councils to the tune of £5 billion shows the scale of the underfunding of public services. I have said in the Chamber previously that the work that I and my predecessor, Caoimhe Archibald, have done has ensured that we get a fairer slice of the cake, but the cake remains far too small. Today's announcement proves that once again. We are working our way through the open-book process with the Treasury. I believe that that will give us the foundations for a very firm case to present to the British Government that they need to fund this place properly.

Miss Hargey: Thanks very much, Minister. It was important that you outlined the disastrous approach of the British Government and the impact that it has had on the funding of services here. You touched on the fact that the consultation on your three-year Budget closed today. Can you outline the next steps in the process for that multi-annual Budget?

Mr O'Dowd: I thank the Member for her question. The Budget consultation closes today, and over 300 responses are in. I welcome those responses very much. When I published my draft Budget in January, I said at that time that I was in listening mode and that it was important that we went out to consultation to allow the public, the business sectors and others to have their say on this. They have responded in quite significant numbers.

I have completed a round of engagement with my Executive colleagues in bilateral format. Those meetings, in my opinion, were positive and constructive. At this stage, we are going through the open-book process with the Treasury. Following the open-book process, I want to open up full political engagement with the Government in relation to proper funding for this place. I have also asked the Executive to set aside a number of specific meetings to discuss the Budget in the run-up to the start of the new financial year. A work programme is mapped out in front of us, and a significant amount of work has been done already on access to the reserve claim, today's announcement and more work to be done, but, as I said, there is a work programme mapped out in front of us.

Mr Tennyson: Thank you, Minister, for the prompt statement. You are right to highlight the issue of underfunding by the UK Government. Of course, the SDLP is happy to sit on the Government Benches at Westminster despite that damage. Minister, given that some of the Barnett consequentials arising in your statement result from support for changes to business rates, are we likely to see any of that money allocated to support businesses here in Northern Ireland?

Mr O'Dowd: The funding referred to for business rates in my statement relates to the fact that the Government have introduced a scheme to compensate for the introduction of Reval in England. We have not moved ahead with Reval, so that is a benefit to the hospitality sector; other sectors will argue that it is to their detriment. As I said, all Barnett consequentials come to the Executive, and it is a matter for the Executive to decide how those Barnett consequentials will be distributed. This funding will go into the overall pot of the three-year Budget, and Ministers will have a decision to make on the three-year Budget and the areas that will be supported across it. I have proposals in my draft Budget for a £10 million fund for the business sector. I would like to see that move ahead, and I will be making an announcement in the Chamber next week in relation to the continuation of the small business rate relief scheme and a number of other rates matters. Funding is set aside. Ministers may agree to that funding continuing, they may add to that pot or they may take from that pot. Those are discussions that have to take place.

Dr Aiken: Thank you very much, Minister, for being so prompt. In her statement today, Rachel Reeves said that, by the next election, people will be over £1,000 a year better off, accounting for inflation. Looking at the figures and at the limited data that we have so far, can the Minister enlighten us on how the Chancellor thinks we are going to be in that situation? I cannot see it.

Mr O'Dowd: I think that many workers, families and businesses will be sitting back and reflecting on the Chancellor's statement today, and particularly on that matter. From where they are sitting at the moment, they do not see it either. Therefore, I think that it is vital that the Government step up to the mark and invest in public services and in the economy, grow the economy, and allow us as an Executive to invest to transform our public services, to invest in our economy and to support our local businesses and our workers. Their current strategy is not achieving that.

Miss Dolan: I thank the Minister for coming here this afternoon. Minister, will you agree that today's announcement shows that the same pressures on public services are being felt right across these islands?

Mr O'Dowd: That is quite and crystal clear. I hope that all those commentators who we regularly have to read and hear on our airwaves talking about the Executive's mismanagement of funds will now realise the true genesis of the issues that we face. The British Government today bailed out their councils to the tune of £5 billion because they could not deliver against the scale of challenges that they face in the delivery of SEN. We face the same challenge, whether it is in the Department of Education, the Department of Health, the Department for Economy or in other areas where we are delivering front-line services to children and young people with SEN. We simply cannot keep pace with the growing demand for it, as has been seen in England.

It is also worth noting that, in November, just before the Chancellor made her Budget announcement, the Department of Health and Social Care in England was bailed out to the tune of £1 billion, because it simply could not keep pace with the pressures that it was facing. Therefore, in the Department of Health and with SEN, we are facing the same common issues that are faced in England and elsewhere.

There is a need for proper funding. I referred in my statement to the stabilisation fund that we had in 2024-25 and 2025-26 of around £520 million. That should have been baselined into our funding. I am engaging and will continue to engage with the British Government about that specific fund and about other funding that the Executive require to deliver public services and to transform them as well.

Mr Kingston: I join others in welcoming the prompt statement on this matter from the Minister. He set out some of the many demands that there will be for that funding. I note that the majority of the resource funding is being provided in the forthcoming financial year. As the Minister is aware, in the same year, there is a restriction on the application of local growth funding, which is having an impact on economic inactivity projects at community level. Does the Minister recognise that the squeeze will be in the forthcoming year? After that, I understand, local growth funding will come under the control of the Northern Ireland Executive, and this might provide an opportunity to lessen the reduction in the number of projects and where they are active in Northern Ireland.

Mr O'Dowd: It will be up to the Executive to decide how the funding is spent. I have no doubt that the Education Minister will be making a very strong case in relation to the SEN pressures that he faces. The Health Minister will be making a very strong case. The Economy Minister and others will be making very strong cases as well.

I will clarify what exactly is happening with the local growth fund. Next year, the fund is being delivered directly by the NIO. In the following years, the fund will be delivered by the Executive, but the funding model is dictated by the British Government, so that split between capital and resource remains. That challenge remains. The Executive will not have the authority or the powers to change that split, so the challenges for the sector will remain. As I said, the decisions that the Executive take are a matter for the Executive. At this stage, however, it would be a huge mistake to take focus away from the British Government's responsibility around the local growth fund. They created the problem; they need to resolve that problem.

Ms Bradshaw: I apologise for not having been in the Chamber for the start of the statement.

Minister, will you provide an update, please, on the open-book exercise and whether it will be comprehensive enough ahead of the potential agreement on a multi-year Budget?

Mr O'Dowd: Work has commenced on the open-book programme. We agreed the terms of reference late last week. Departments are engaging with my Department and the Treasury on that. It is a very short time frame. I would like to see that work completed within a couple of weeks. The case that we present can be presented within two weeks. The Treasury will have its wishes and asks from the process, but there is only so much work that you can do in two weeks. You can dive only so deeply in these matters, but I am confident that we can present our case.

Mr Gaston: I join others in welcoming the statement coming to the House, and coming to the House so promptly. Minister, £227·8 million in resource DEL is coming in 2026-27. When you then take in the reserve claim, however, it brings it down to £147 million of debt. When you get into 2027-28, there is only £5·6 billion, and, when you take in the reserve claim, it brings us to a negative £154·4 million. Did you have any input, or can you have any input going forward, so that each year we get the same amount of money to allow for a better financial structure? That would mean that, when we are making the repayments, there is not one year when we are getting money net receipt and then giving a lot back. Surely it makes your job very difficult when it is not the same amount of money coming each year.

Mr O'Dowd: We had no input into the profiling of the money, and the Member is right: the roller coaster nature of how we are funded makes my job more difficult. Earlier today, before the Chancellor spoke, I received a briefing on the funding from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. The Chancellor then made her address, after which the paperwork was published. I want my officials to go back and engage with the Treasury about the funding profile. I also have questions about whether previous funding was sufficiently taken into account in the award that we received. The allocation of a £5 billion bailout for English councils has raised a number of questions, the answers to which I remain uncertain. I therefore want my officials to engage with the Treasury, and I will engage at a ministerial level as well. If we were able to change the funding profile, that would be helpful. In our continued engagement with the Government, as I have said repeatedly, the overall funding — the global pot — that we are dealing with also needs to be taken into account.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for his statement. I concur entirely with him that the British Government are responsible for the mess that has been made of the local growth fund, but the Executive have a responsibility to look after people here and to protect the hugely important work that is being done by so many organisations that have depended on the Shared Prosperity Fund (SPF) and, prior to that, the European social fund. We cannot afford to let that work grind to a halt. Will consideration therefore be given at least to looking at restoring the funding that the Executive provided to match the European social fund prior to our being dragged out of Europe against the Minister's wishes and ours?

Mr O'Dowd: The Member is right that a straight line can be drawn from Brexit to this problem. It is a straight line the whole way. The prospect of replacing the funding to match what we have received from the SPF or that which we previously received from the European social fund has gone. Its scale is unachievable by the Executive. I repeat: the Executive will make decisions on the allocation of funding, but every pound that we spend on area A leaves one pound fewer to spend in area B. In the circumstances, we are talking about approximately £15 million per annum. I encourage Members to keep their focus on where it is needed, which is on the British Government.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): No other Members have indicated that they wish to ask a question. That therefore concludes questions on the Minister's statement. I ask Members to take their ease for a moment before we move to the next item in the Order Paper.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): In conjunction with the Business Committee, the Speaker has given leave to Joanne Bunting to raise the topic of day centre transport services in East Belfast. Joanne, you have up to 15 minutes.

Ms Bunting: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise a matter of significance and import that has caused considerable distress to some of the most vulnerable adults and families in my constituency of East Belfast and, by extension, to Health and Social Care (HSC) staff. I welcome the Minister of Health's presence this afternoon.

The issue concerns ongoing and unacceptable transport failures that affect service users of the Edgcumbe Day Centre in East Belfast. Members will be aware that Edgcumbe is the only full-time day centre in the whole of East Belfast. It has over 100 users per day. For many people, every day from the age of 19 until they pass away, it provides their only social activity and interaction beyond that with their immediate family. It is a truly wonderful facility with amazing staff, to whom I pay tribute, and inspirational service users, who have varying levels of need or disability or require additional help, support or therapeutic services.

It is not exaggeration or hyperbole to state that the centre is a lifeline for those users and for those who love them and care for them. I believe that it is accurate to state that, for everybody concerned, it is a part of their day to which they look forward and on which they rely. Indeed, for many users, parents and guardians, it is fundamental to their physical and mental well-being. It provides structure, routine, social connection and vital support. For parents and carers, it offers much-needed respite — in some cases, the only respite that they receive. Some families have been linked to Edgcumbe for more than 20 years, so it has become like a second home: a safe place and a place of refuge and enjoyment.

Whilst the issue has been ongoing for some time — indeed, parents wrote to former Minister Swann in 2019 to no avail — over recent months, families have found themselves at the end of their tether because the transport services that they depend on have been failing repeatedly. Buses do not come or are cancelled. Parents are then left with no notice or short notice and no alternative but to make last-minute travel arrangements — in many cases, paying for taxis from their own pocket. For the people who avail themselves of Edgcumbe, especially those with complex medical needs, disruption to routine has a hugely negative impact. Given that some users have specialist wheelchairs or other equipment, private cars and taxis, including taxis for people with disabilities, are unable to transport them. For those users, there is no workaround at all, so, when transport fails, they simply cannot attend and, consequently, miss out entirely.

The crux of the issue is that a driver shortage in the trust is resulting in a number of the children and adults not being able to avail themselves of the service due to cancelled or revised transport services, some of which happens at the last minute. For users who must be accompanied, it is financially unviable for them to use taxis, as the taxis have to wait and return. Further, it is impractical for them to use public transport. By way of example, for users who need to be accompanied in a taxi, the staff can do only one run and the taxi must wait and return, which can cost up to £22 per day. If that taxi is not shared with another user, the cost of taxis alone can be £180 a week, when the travel allowance is £77 a week. Thus, users often have to eat into their £34-a-week allowance for personal care. To make matters worse, professional carers often have to accompany service users in the taxi to ensure their safety and well-being. That means that staff are being taken away from their duties and leaving gaps in other areas of care.

I have spoken directly with parents — constituents — who are affected. I know that other Members in the Chamber have done so, as has the Minister. Their accounts are heartbreaking. Families report the significant stress and anxiety resulting from the cancellations of the bus service, both for their children and themselves. I have been told of adults with special educational needs — sons, daughters, siblings — who have been left waiting in distress, becoming increasingly anxious and frustrated. Short notice can result in huge meltdowns. Remember: they are grown men and women, many of whom retain their physicality. It is difficult for parents to watch such emotional distress when they feel so powerless to help. Members will appreciate that, for those users, routine is everything. Change and disruption are difficult. Users become agitated, upset, stressed and irritable, yet it is not much better when they are afforded notice. If they know that the bus is not coming on Monday morning, they do not sleep, because their routine has been disrupted. We heard from parents whose children are in residential care, and they told us that their children will call them in the middle of the night or early in the morning because they are riddled with anxiety caused by the change and the loss. They know they cannot get to the centre and will be stuck in the house. Indeed, one user has begun to self-harm as a consequence.

Conversely, parents report that their children settle when the bus comes, which is a testament to Edgcumbe’s success and its significance to the users. Further, it must be borne in mind that considerable numbers of the parents are ageing or elderly. They are often smaller than their adult children and physically incapable of withstanding meltdowns and dealing with the outworkings of the emotional fallout and distress. They are vulnerable, and many have health conditions of their own and already perpetually live in fear about what will happen to their child when they are no longer able or no longer here to take care of them or stand up for them. The same applies to the siblings who have taken on the caring responsibilities.

Further to a meeting between the Belfast Trust and parents and guardians, the trust advised that the cause of the failures lies in a shortage of drivers. The trust said that it had engaged in repeated recruitment exercises that have failed due to pay disparity. Bus drivers are paid a lower hourly rate than drivers in other sectors and Departments. Thus, naturally, recruitment and retention are becoming increasingly difficult. To outline the extent of the problem, at the initial meeting in October, we were advised that the trust lost nearly double the number of drivers in 2025 than in the previous year and that, despite rolling recruitment, applicants are down by almost two thirds on the year before, which has compounded the difficulty.

It is deeply concerning that an essential service for vulnerable adults and their families has been allowed to deteriorate to that point because of an unresolved staffing issue. At the meeting, to its credit, the trust was rightly honest about the situation it faces and the steps that it is taking to alleviate the matter. The trust is in discussions about training and employment schemes, but, ultimately, it requires drivers to accept a lower wage than they could earn elsewhere. Understandably, in the current economic climate, that is a difficult ask and a tough choice.

Mr McGrath: Will the Member give way?

Ms Bunting: I will.

Mr McGrath: It is interesting that the drivers earn less. An imaginative approach would be to recognise that the drivers also take on caring responsibilities. They are the familiar face; they have interactions; and they keep people calm while they are being transported. Maybe recognising that element of the role, which respects all the duties that the drivers undertake, would help to increase their wages.

Ms Bunting: I am grateful to the Member for making that point. He is absolutely right, and I hope that the Minister of Health will address that issue.

The trust outlined the difficulties with the contracted prices for agency workers and, notably and interestingly, mentioned the need for trusts to have zero-hours contracts because many of the drivers are also employed elsewhere. Losing those contracts would have a further hugely detrimental effect on those services. To bring additional buses on board, the trust even tendered for private coach firms, but no company submitted a bid. The trust is frustrated that every avenue it has explored has failed to provide a remedy.

In accordance with the rules for Adjournment debates, I intend to focus my remarks on the impact in my constituency of East Belfast. However, it should be noted that it is not merely an issue in the Belfast Trust; it is reflected across the piece, but we are advised that the Belfast Trust is the most affected. Astonishingly, I am led to believe that there are no fundamental conversations between the trusts, no learning taken from one another and no discussions about best practice or solutions, which is why I sought to involve the Minister. I considered it imperative that he was informed of the overall problem, the siloed nature of the responses to a regional issue and, most important, that he heard directly for himself the human impact on users and their loved ones.

I express my thanks to the Minister for his recent visit to Edgcumbe Day Centre at my request, alongside Andy Allen MLA and our local MP, Gavin Robinson. During the visit, the Minister heard at first hand from families, particularly Clare and Jacqueline, who spoke movingly and powerfully on behalf of the families about the realities of life for parents and carers and the toll taken by the ongoing uncertainty. The Minister will also remember William, who uses a specialised wheelchair and depends entirely on suitable transport arrangements.

I thank the Minister for taking the time to listen. His presence and engagement were appreciated, but, as he will understand and, I hope, agree, families need more than empathy; they need action and resolution.

We are all aware of the significant financial pressures that the Minister faces. Nevertheless, I considered it only fair and right to make him aware of what is going on and to ask him to look into it, given the urgency of the problem in East Belfast and the wider Belfast area. However, its Province-wide impact may offer an opportunity for a regional solution, which might be cost-effective and more easily negotiated.

Edgcumbe needs at least five buses or, ideally, six. On a good day, it has three. Inevitably, some attendees are always left behind. We need clarity on what specific steps are being taken to address the pay disparities that undermine recruitment and retention; we need assurance that there is a contingency plan so that no service user is left stranded; we need a timeline for when families can expect reliability to be restored; and we need recognition that the matter is not peripheral or administrative but goes to the heart of how we treat adults with profound additional needs and support those who care for them.

The families are not asking for luxury; they are asking for a bus to arrive when it is supposed to, for their sons and daughters to be treated with dignity and for the small measure of respite that allows them to continue caring at home. I appreciate the pressures on the health service and know that the challenges of workforce shortages are real, but it must be recognised that, for families such as those connected to Edgcumbe, the breakdown of something as fundamental as transport has a devastating ripple effect. It impacts on mental health, emotional and physical well-being, employment, family stability and, ultimately, trust in the system.

I seek the Minister's urgent intervention to stabilise transport provision and prevent the current situation from reoccurring. The families have waited too long: some have waited for at least seven years, as the Minister knows. The attendees rely on that transport. It is their gateway to opportunities to learn, socialise, have some independence and receive therapy — in other words, to lead a fulfilled life. The service users and their families deserve answers. They deserve action, reassurance, peace of mind and, ultimately, the service that they were promised.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members have seven minutes in which to speak.

Mr McReynolds: I will speak as an MLA for East Belfast. I thank my constituency colleague for securing the debate and welcome her back to the Assembly after a bout of illness last week.

Since becoming an MLA, I have enjoyed Adjournment debates because they bring us together as MLAs for our constituencies. While we may disagree politically on various issues, we can collectively use our voice as East Belfast MLAs to effect change for the people whom we are elected to represent. I thank David and Andy for joining us. I also thank the Minister for being present to hear about what I consider to be a live issue.

As the Member who secured the debate articulated, day centres such as Edgcumbe are vital to our community. Edgcumbe is the only day centre for adults with learning disabilities in East Belfast. It works with those aged 19 and older, with the oldest users being in their 80s. Such centres are essential to ensuring that there are opportunities and support for those in our community with additional needs. They do that by providing opportunities to take part in activities and spaces in which to socialise, thereby building a community and promoting independence while providing necessary respite for families and carers.

Transportation is crucial to facilitating access to that, as we have just heard. You can imagine my surprise, Mr Deputy Speaker, when I raised the matter with the Chair of the Education Committee yesterday, only to be advised that he had heard rumblings of discontent — that drivers were leaving for better terms and conditions and pay in the education sector. That development manifests itself in limits on access for service users, interruption to routines, impacts on care arrangements and pressure on families to find alternative transport.

The issue around transport for day-care facilities is not unique to East Belfast, but it is important. For those with complex needs, consistent and reliable transport is vital, because finding alternative transport that meets their needs is not simple. The crux of the issue is that the hiring and retention of drivers for day-centre buses has become an urgent issue, with many drivers leaving their roles in transport services for day centres to work elsewhere for better pay. You cannot fault them for seeking other opportunities in the context of a cost-of-living crisis.

Ms Bunting articulately set out the issues. I thank her for raising the issue today. I welcome the opportunity to raise it with the Minister, and I look forward to hearing his response to ensure that those seeking to access transport to day centres are not impacted on by driver shortages.

Mr Allen: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important Adjournment debate. I thank my constituency colleague Joanne Bunting MLA for securing it.

As we have heard, Edgcumbe is a vital day centre that supports adults over the age of 18, many of whom have complex support needs. Attendance provides structure, routine and social engagement that underpin well-being and independence and provides families with much-needed respite. When transport works, the system works. When it does not, the impact is felt immediately.

There have been repeated issues with unreliability, including buses not arriving and cancellations at short notice. For those who depend heavily on routine, that sudden disruption can cause real distress. For families and providers, it means scrambling to rearrange work patterns and staffing and support arrangements at the last minute. Those affected live on tightly defined incomes. Their payments cover accommodation, care and essential living costs, leaving only a modest personal allowance. However, when transport fails, they can be left having to cover the cost of taxis themselves. In some cases, individuals cannot travel independently, as the Member outlined, meaning that the cost must cover both their own fare and that of an escort, resulting in multiple journeys at a significant cost. Even then, not all taxi providers can accommodate certain wheelchairs. For some, it may be an option, but, for the majority, it is neither practical nor accessible. A fallback to taxis when transport fails is not sustainable or acceptable. Attendance at a statutory day-care centre should not depend on whether someone can afford an emergency fare or find a suitable mode of transport at short notice.

There is also a safeguarding aspect. The adults who attend Edgcumbe depend on routine. When that routine is disrupted and days are missed, that is not something that they can simply make up the following week. The impact can be felt quickly in their mood, behaviour and overall stability. Often, it is the families who are left to pick up the pieces and manage that fallout.

I fully appreciate that unforeseen situations will arise. However, as has been mentioned, that is not what is occurring in this instance. Recruitment and retention challenges across social care can be an issue. Transport provision appears to be particularly affected, with drivers able to secure higher rates of pay from other employers. I recently raised that issue directly with the Minister, following representation from a constituent who was affected. I know that the Minister, the Department and the trust have been working to resolve that, but, to date, it has not been resolved satisfactorily.

It is clear that, if the structural issues are not addressed, reliability will continue to suffer. I ask the Minister to outline how many journeys to Edgcumbe have been cancelled in the past year due to driver shortages, whether driver pay and conditions have been benchmarked against comparable roles and what concrete steps are being taken to improve stability in this area. I also urge the consideration of a formal contingency arrangement so that, should transport fail — I hope that, through this intervention and other engagement that Joanne, Gavin and I have had with the Minister, it will not — individuals are not left out of pocket or unable to attend their day centre.

We all know the difference that Edgcumbe makes. The staff are dedicated and committed. I echo the comments of Ms Bunting in paying tribute to the dedicated staff. Their ability to deliver depends on the ability of those who attend to access the service. For those who rely on Edgcumbe, transport is not secondary to the service; it is what makes it possible. None of the issues will be new to the Minister. He, Joanne, Gavin Robinson MP and I heard directly from those with lived experience during the Minister's visit on 29 January 2026. Their concerns are clear, and they have been raised for years. It is imperative that the concerns raised by families at that meeting are addressed in order to deliver long-term reliability and confidence in transport to Edgcumbe.

Mr Brooks: Like others, I thank my party colleague Joanne Bunting for securing the Adjournment debate. She articulated well the issues and what Edgcumbe means to the families who use the service. While I appreciate that the context for the debate is the wider issue of day-care centres in East Belfast, my office has been contacted by families with relatives who attend that day centre, and everything that has been spoken about so far rings true. I appreciate that the debate comes after the Minister's visit that was hosted by my party colleague and attended by Andy and Gavin. I acknowledge that important engagement with families.

Families with relatives attending Edgcumbe understand the scale of the financial pressures that the Department faces. They are not naïve about the fiscal realities of the health system. They recognise the difficult decisions that must be made, yet, like many others, they are weary of hearing the same explanation year after year. I understand that one gentleman showed the Minister a letter from 2018 that outlined the financial pressures at that time. Eight years on, the language remains familiar, with families waiting to hear, day by day and week by week, whether the bus service will go ahead. When an issue persists across nearly a decade, reference to financial pressures ceases to reassure and instead begins to sound like permanence. We know that Northern Ireland has not been funded as it should be. We know that my party leader has repeatedly made the fiscal case at Westminster. Limited budgets, however, do not suspend decision-making. A system that contracts each time pressure mounts is not resilient but, rather, is left exposed. In this case, the bus transport workforce model cannot absorb predictable absence, be it annual leave, sickness or turnover, without reducing the service. That exposes three underlying problems.

The first problem is operational instability. The bus service system is overly reliant on perfect conditions and has little resilience built into the model. If one bus driver takes annual leave, if someone is off sick or if recruitment takes longer than expected, the system falters. In its current format, the bus service does not have enough built-in flexibility or contingency to absorb normal, everyday pressures, and that fragility has been shown for years.

The second problem is ineffective mitigation. In a letter issued by the Health Minister to the families following the Edgcumbe meeting, reference was made to the shortage of bus drivers being recorded on the trust's risk register. That is not insignificant. It has been identified as a material risk to service delivery. It is recognised and is reviewed, yet it remains unresolved. The purpose of the risk register is not to catalogue the difficulty but to reduce exposure. A risk should trigger action, not simply observation. It should prompt a structural response, not a procedural repetition. If the instability of the bus service has continued across multiple biannual reviews, one of two conclusions must follow: either the mitigation strategy has not been effective or the underlying cause has not been adequately addressed.

The third problem is that the recruitment model is not delivering. There are competing pressures in the local labour market. As we have heard, comparable driver roles in other sectors, including the Education Authority and Translink, offer more attractive pay or greater flexibility, and that cannot be ignored. We have heard that you cannot expect those who are offered better terms to stay. Recruitment campaigns are repeatedly undertaken. While there will be interest from some potential employees, the total square sum making it from initial interview to completion dwindles to nothing. That suggests that the model is not aligned with market conditions. Advertising the same posts under the same terms does not overcome the competitiveness issues. The response from the Department of Health needs to be fundamentally readdressed.

As the DUP spokesperson for education, I regularly visit schools and have informal conversations with school bus drivers. Some are semi-retired but still feel that they have something to contribute. They are experienced, licensed and capable, but what they are not seeking is rigid, full-time employment. That reality points to an opportunity. If there is a pool of semi-retired or part-time bus drivers who are willing to work one or two days a week, it becomes a question of whether the trust's recruitment model is flexible enough to attract that kind of worker. As I understand it, the structure in the Department of Health — I heard my colleague speak about zero-hours contracts, and I bow to her knowledge of that — accommodates only those in fixed, full-time roles and excludes precisely the kind of workforce that could provide resilience.

It is not simply about filling vacancies but about redesigning a model that has, over the years, shown that it cannot withstand ordinary pressures.

Families are not asking for perfection; they are asking for reliability. When that is missing, disabled adults lose access. If the bus is not running, they do not get to the day-care centre, meaning that they miss out on structured support and lose routine and social interaction disappears. The impact does not stop there, however. The wider circle of care is affected. Families lose what for many of them is their only opportunity for respite. Disabled adults' extended confinement at home without routine and structured support can lead to heightened anxiety, distress and behavioural challenges. Frustration builds, regulation becomes harder and pressure increases not only for the individual but for the whole family.

After years of instability, it is no longer about explanation but about action. Families have shown patience and engaged constructively and understand the financial constraints, but understanding does not remove the need for reliability. The bus service is not an optional add-on; it is a gateway to support, structure and stability for disabled adults and their families. The time has come to move from acknowledgement to reform and to build a transport service that is resilient by design and not vulnerable to circumstance.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call the Minister of Health to respond to the Adjournment debate. Minister, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and thank you to all the Members for East Belfast who have contributed. I pay particular thanks to Andy and Joanne, who made me aware of the issues. Joanne invited me to visit the day centre. I am glad that I did, but I must say that my visit was informative rather than enjoyable, because there is no fun in hearing about the impacts of a lack of transport on service users, carers and parents. Towards the end of his remarks, Mr Brooks touched on some of the impacts. He talked about anxiety levels, behaviours, distress and harm among individuals who are unable to access their day-care services.

Carers referred to difficulties as a result of having to make alternative arrangements at very short notice. On many occasions, that has resulted in associated costs, including the use of the personal independence payment (PIP) to assist with transport-related costs. That is not what PIP is for. Carers also expressed particular difficulty with organising alternative transport when taxis are unable to accommodate wheelchairs. Some wheelchairs are bulky, and some vehicles are not designed to accommodate them.

Family carers advised that difficulties with transport arrangements can result in adults with a learning disability not being able to avail themselves of a full day's attendance at the day centre, which is their life. We are reducing their opportunities to engage in meaningful activity and reducing the support that is available to the carers, not least the few hours in which they can be themselves. As Minister of Health, I accept the need and consider it to be imperative not only to hear from staff but to listen to the views of families and service users about provision. From my visit, it was clear to me that day centres are an essential lifeline for many service users and carers. I took on board the issues that the families and service users raised about transport provision to and from the day centre. It was disappointing to hear from a family representative that transport issues had been ongoing without resolution, as Mr Brooks said, since 2019.

Following my visit, departmental officials met trust representatives, and key actions were agreed with the Belfast Trust to address transport issues. In advance of the debate, officials contacted the trust to obtain an update on those agreed actions. I am pleased to report that there has been some improvement. On recruitment, the Belfast Trust transport team has advised that two bus drivers have commenced in post since 1 January this year: one in January and one in February. Additionally, two more drivers are due to commence post: one in March and the other in April. The trust further reported ongoing engagement with the Business Services Organisation to advertise again for bus drivers. The trust anticipates those vacancies being advertised early this month. The trust further reported that there has been an improvement in agency recruitment, with two drivers commencing via an agency in the past two weeks.

The trust continues to progress pathways to employment for bus drivers with the local council, supporting people who are currently unemployed to obtain the necessary licence. Time frames for that are yet to be finalised. The trust advises that its transport and human resources department continues to seek a resolution to the ongoing issues, as well as considering options to advance recruitment by using agencies and trust recruitment drives. The trust plans to progress more localised advertising and social media advertising.

It is acknowledged that the issue of transport staff working to rule and the pay disparity compared with other employers will take time to address because it involves human resource and staff-side representatives. My officials advise that, although the issues remain challenging, the trust's transport service department is working hard to bring the service to full capacity.

When it comes to considering additional buses, the Belfast Trust's transport service advises Edgcumbe Day Centre and all other centres in the trust area that it does not have a bus shortage. The Belfast Trust confirmed that five buses are currently out of operation, including those that have planned routine service requirements. The trust considers, however, that there are enough spare buses to cope with any that may be off-road due to service or maintenance requirements. The trust advises that the main issue regarding transport to Edgcumbe is driver shortages, with one vacancy and one long-term sickness. The trust plans to fill that vacancy in the coming weeks.

Trust representatives advised that the trust continues to explore alternative transport provision as appropriate and in line with assessed need. Trust and departmental officials remain committed to addressing transport issues to ensure that individuals assessed as requiring support with transport consistently receive that support. Family carers and service users should direct any queries to the trust to ensure that alternative service provision to assist family carers in their role is fully explored. The Belfast Trust has provided a contact number for families in the event that they experience issues: the transport supervisor's number is 028 9504 0801. That line is live from 7.30 am until 8.30 pm. The number will be available in the Hansard report, once it is published.

Ms Bunting: I am really grateful to the Minister for giving way. On the basis that it is a regional issue, there may be an opportunity for negotiation. I appreciate that he is outlining the trust's position, but has he given consideration to the wider issue and the opportunities that there may be to effect change?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for that question. Yes, I have done that. In fact, before I left Edgcumbe that day in late January, I spoke to officials about the quantum that would be required to bring the hourly rate for those drivers into line with the rate in other statutory services. The answer was that it would be a very significant sum of money.

That brings me on to this point. Mr Brooks said that, if it is on the risk register, it is time for action and that, if the system is broken, it needs to be addressed. My question to Mr Brooks is this: how? The learning disability service is the third-largest programme of care in Health and Social Care when measured by cost. The cost equates to around £500 million per annum, and it is expected that it will continue to grow because we have increasing rates of disability. It is really good news that children are now surviving into adulthood because we are able to care for them better than we were previously. The problem is that, if I need to find millions of pounds to bring the hourly rate up to something that is competitive with the other statutory services, where will I get that money?

A couple of hours ago, I was involved in another debate in the Chamber, and the mood and will of the Assembly was that I should find about £2·5 million to fully deliver on the business case for eating disorder services. During that debate, Mr McGrath made clear that I am delivering less than 20% of the £1·2 billion that it will cost to deliver the mental health strategy in full over its 10-year lifespan.

Mr Brooks: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Nesbitt: Every week, I am in the Chamber to hear the will of Members that I do more for a particular service or set of services. The money does not exist.

I will give way to the Member by all means.

Mr Brooks: I thank the Minister for giving way. We all appreciate the scale of the challenge that he faces in delivering services within budget, and he clearly has a grasp on the key issues. I am glad to hear about the ongoing recruitment, but I fear that it is a false economy and that you are bringing people in through recruitment, and they may work for you for a short while, but then they will be off to pastures new, where they will get paid more. I worry that there is a leakage of money there that could be put towards improving pay. It may cost too much to get it in line with other services, but some kind of improvement would be better than having continual recruitment campaigns that are leaking money.

Mr Nesbitt: Mr McGrath hit on something, which is that the drivers are not just drivers. If they are regular collectors and deliverers of the same service users, then, to some extent, they become carers and deliverers of care. It is about a package. The role involves more than simply driving a vehicle for an hourly rate. That is where I see the potential.

Did I have 10 minutes, Mr Deputy Speaker?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Yes.

Mr Nesbitt: We need to be innovative and imaginative. If we focus solely on the money, we will be beaten. We cannot continue to absorb over 50% of the entire Executive Budget because the other Departments are doing very good work, not least in addressing the social determinants of ill health.