Official Report: Tuesday 24 March 2026

Mr Sheehan: Vótáil beagnach 92% de mhic léinn a ghlac páirt i reifreann, vótáil siad ar son an Ghaeilge a chur ar aon dul leis an Bhéarla in Ollscoil na Banríona an tseachtain seo caite. Deirtear gurbh é an reifreann ba mhó é i stair na hollscoile. Bhain Ollscoil na Banríona comharthaíocht dhátheangach anuas sa bhliain 1997. Ó shin i leith, is i mBéarla amháin a dhéanann an ollscoil riar ar chomharthaíocht agus ar bhrandáil ar fud na hollscoile.

Ní mór don ollscoil tús a chuir le polasaí cuimsitheach Gaeilge a chur i bhfeidhm. Is toradh é seo ar son an chomhionannais agus an ionchuimsithe in ollscoil ina raibh méadú de 227% ar chlárúcháin ar chúrsaí Gaeilge.

Tá an Ghaeilge beo bríomhar in Ollscoil na Banríona, Béal Feirste. Agus pobal na Gaeilge ag fás leis, leanfaidh Sinn Féin de bheith ag déanamh gach a bhfuil ar ár gcumas le cur leis an fhás sin agus le cearta Gaeilgeoirí a neartú.

Mr Brett: One of the greatest and most enduring scandals in Northern Ireland is the disgraceful treatment of innocent victims by successive British and Irish Governments. For decades, those who suffered most have often been pushed aside, ignored and, at times, treated as a political inconvenience. They watched as, under the Belfast Agreement, prison gates were opened and those responsible for the most brutal, cold-blooded and sectarian murders walked free. They watched as some even sought to glorify that violence, and they listen now as the First Minister of no alternative praises their evil deeds. They watched as successive Governments blurred the moral line, equating victims with the very perpetrators who caused the suffering. They now watch as proposals are advanced to hand a role in legacy matters to the Irish Government: the very Government who presided over a sanctuary for terrorists.

Those are not abstract issues; they relate to real people — families who carry loss every single day. Those families are from all backgrounds and from all political traditions and none. They deserve better than warm words; they deserve action. Labour came into office promising change — a new dawn — but the Labour Government are failing to deliver on many of those promises. They are failing innocent victims, failing those who stood against terrorism and failing those who have upheld democracy. They have now been forced to delay the next stage of their legacy Bill as a result of amendments tabled by this party.

We cannot continue down a path that rewrites history or diminishes the suffering of victims. There must never be any moral equivalence between the people who carried out acts of terrorism and the people who suffered at their hands. That principle must be clear and unwavering, and reflected in every policy brought forward by Government. It is time to put victims first and to ensure that their voices are finally heard. The Democratic Unionist Party will always stand proudly on the side of innocent victims. We will never allow the past to be rewritten. As long as I am in office, I will use my voice to stand up for innocent victims of terrorism.

Ms Egan: March is Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month, serving as an important reminder to step back and reflect on the realities of that tragic disease in our communities in Northern Ireland. Over 200 women in Northern Ireland are diagnosed with ovarian cancer every year. We must continue to fight for improved outcomes for all those who face it.

This time last year, I stood up in the Chamber and informed Members of the staggering facts, including:

What has happened since then? Over the past year, I have worked with campaigners from Target Ovarian Cancer to change that. In November, I, alongside awe-inspiring campaigners Christine Campbell and Pauline Donnelly, presented a letter to the Health Minister, signed by 26 MLAs, to ask him to update public health information to make it clear that cervical screening will not detect ovarian cancer and signpost key symptoms. Despite sounding like a small step, that is vital, as research points to 46% of women in Northern Ireland believing that a cervical screening will detect ovarian cancer. Target Ovarian Cancer's successful lobbying means not just that that information is updated on online public health resources but that, from this month onwards, cervical screening invitation letters will be updated to highlight the fact that the tests do not screen for other gynaecological cancers and that, from this summer, a formal change will be made to patient leaflets. That is fantastic progress, but there is still so much more to be done, such as giving patients access to poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, otherwise known as target treatments or maintenance treatments.

Those wonderfully brave campaigners who came with me to meet the Health Minister, Christine Campbell and Pauline Donnelly, also recorded a video that went up on the Department of Health's social media last week, in which they discuss with the Health Minister their journey and the symptoms of ovarian cancer. The symptoms include persistent bloating; feeling full quickly or having a loss of appetite; pain in your tummy and pelvis; and needing to pee more often or urgently than usual. The video is really worth watching, and I encourage all those here today to share Target Ovarian Cancer's resources with their loved ones and communities. I thank all those who have campaigned for better outcomes on the disease, including my constituent Stephen, who was the first person to contact me on the issue and who kick-started much of my work.

Ms Ferguson: The visit by a number of Members to the EU institutions in Brussels over St Patrick's Day was extremely positive. There are huge benefits to continuously building on relationships with our EU counterparts. I was delighted to take part, alongside Brian Kingston of the DUP, in detailed engagements with the Committee of the Regions (CoR) and the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly. The junior Ministers also met the chair of the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly, Sandro Gozi MEP. Junior Ministers Aisling Reilly and Joanne Bunting highlighted and advocated the importance of identifying opportunities to strengthen cooperation and shared understanding with the EU. I praise junior Minister Reilly and junior Minister Bunting for delivering such a positive and proactive message and building closer relationships with friends and colleagues in the EU.

All of us, alongside Minister Andrew Muir, attended the Executive Office in Brussels annual St Patrick's Day breakfast. There was plenty of food for thought about the benefits of strategic collaboration between the Executive and the European Union. We discussed, amongst other issues, PEACE PLUS, participation of the North in ERASMUS+, other youth mobility initiatives and economic partnerships. We stand to benefit from deeper engagement with the European Union as a result of dual market access. Events such as the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly are an opportunity to strengthen that engagement.

Ultimately, of course, I believe that Ireland's place is within the EU via a united Ireland. However, there is much that we can do in the meantime to build closer relationships, and the engagement of both junior Ministers, Minister Muir and MLAs over St Patrick's Day is a good example of that.

Mr O'Toole: I will do something for the first time today: talk about a written ministerial statement. The written ministerial statement on the developer levy was published by the Infrastructure Minister last Thursday. It was released under embargo on Wednesday — I am not sure why the embargo existed, by the way — and released formally on Thursday. It was not brought to the House for debate, which, frankly, is no surprise, because one of the first questions that a Member might have reasonably asked is, "What's the point of the policy?", given that it is unclear whether it will contribute to the building of a single home in Northern Ireland.

We know that we have a crisis in our waste water infrastructure system. We know that the crisis is contributing to the environmental catastrophe at Lough Neagh and elsewhere. We also know that it is preventing houses, including social and affordable homes, from being built for our people. We know that it is holding back economic development. It is preventing not just big factories and shopping developments but cafés in my constituency — places that sell cups of tea and tray bakes — from opening. It is a disaster. It is one of the single biggest things that is holding this society back. It is keeping people on their mum's sofa. It is stopping social homes being built. It is stopping economic development.

The Infrastructure Minister and her party told us that one of the big solutions was that developer contributions would help to unlock development and to tackle our waste water crisis. After a 14-week consultation and lots of big promises, and after dismissing Members from other parties in the Chamber who asked the Infrastructure Minister and her colleague the Finance Minister what was being done about NI Water, we have a written ministerial statement, which was snuck out under embargo — not a word to the Chamber and no opportunity for Members to ask questions — on a voluntary contribution system.

The statement is at pains to say that no developer, no matter how profitable, will be compelled to make a contribution to the waste water system, so it is a glorified tip jar. You may as well stick a charity box there and say, "Grand, if you want to". I do not know whether it takes contactless or cash only payments, but it is a joke, I am afraid. It is risible.

The statement also references British austerity, which has been a real thing over the past decade and a half. The Executive have faced a squeeze on the block grant, but it was not British austerity that produced the risible policy that the Minister outlined last week. No wonder she did not come to the Chamber and tell the people and MLAs about it, because it is a joke. It will not help to build a single home, unless there are developers and housing associations that are going to rush out and tell us that they are about to unlock thousands of homes, but I have not heard that yet. It is, frankly, a sign of an Executive who are not delivering for the people. Sinn Féin says that it wants to deliver for the people of the North, but, whether it is on the A5, Casement Park or the simple need to invest in our water system in order to build homes, it is failing the people here.

Mr Clarke: Quite often in the Chamber, we hear Members complaining about the length of time that it takes for questions to be answered. Given the complexities of some questions, I understand that it may take considerable time. Six weeks ago — bear with me — I tabled the following question for written answer:

Given the financial state of the health service and the Health Minister's concerns about raising finance, you would think that that is a fairly straightforward question to answer and that plans for Muckamore Abbey would be at an advanced stage.

Given that, like me, the Minister has representatives in that area, he will, I am sure, have heard by now some of the concerns from people who live in the Antrim area and beyond. Those concerns are that there are allegedly plans afoot — I do not know whether this is true or otherwise, but, if it is not true, it would have been good to kill off the rumours — to take asylum seekers to Muckamore Abbey. If that is true, we will be deeply disappointed.

Just last night, I had a lady on with me who is being made homeless on Monday. The recovery van is coming on Monday. She is a pensioner and has nowhere to go. Three weeks ago, I had a similar case with another pensioner, who called off the recovery van on the morning that the van was to come because the landlord gave her an extension on her lease. Those would all have been viable reasons to use the unused student accommodation and other parts of that building, but, if those rumours are true, it is deeply disappointing.

There is no rationale for it to take six weeks for a priority question for written answer to be answered, given the basic nature of the question. I know that the Minister is here today. I am sure — I hope — that the Minister has had sight of this. While I am on my feet, I make this call on the Minister: if those rumours are not true, can we get that question answered to quell the concerns in the community? This is gathering steam. There are people who live in Muckamore Abbey. There are still clients on the Muckamore Abbey site. Former patients are in supported living beside it. Former staff live on-site. I think that the last thing that those people would wish to hear is confirmation that there are plans, now or in the future, for an immigration centre on that site.

Mr Tennyson: I rise to remember the life of Natalie McNally. It has been a privilege to get to know Natalie's parents, Noel and Bernie, over the past three and a half years. In that three and a half years, they have, alongside Natalie's brothers Declan and Niall, carried themselves with immeasurable strength, dignity, courage and grace in the face of the most unimaginable horror and loss. We have all been moved by the stories that they have shared about the happy memories that they shared with Natalie — her sense of humour, her belief in equality, her love of sport — and it was very clear that she had a positive impact on so many people during her short but brilliant life. Although justice was served yesterday, that will not bring Natalie back, though I hope that it brings the family some comfort and closure. I also hope that the family feel the support for them from right across our community as they grieve Natalie's untimely loss and murder.

We must take this moment to reflect on what we can do, in the Chamber and outside of it, to tackle violence against women and girls. We must all reflect on our actions and attitudes and commit ourselves, in Natalie's memory and in memory of all the women who have been so tragically murdered, to build a society that is kinder, more compassionate and inclusive and in which men treat women with the dignity and respect that they deserve.

Mr McHugh: Bhí an Lá Idirnáisiúnta leis an Ioslamafóibe a Chomhrac agus an Lá Idirnáisiúnta um Idirdhealú Ciníoch a Dhíothú ann an steachtain seo caite. Is cúis imní dúinn go bhfuil líon na gcoireanna fuatha in aghaidh Moslamach ag ardú ar fud an domhain. Léirítear i bhfigiúirí a tháinig amach le déanaí go bhfuil Moslamaigh ar cheann de na grúpaí is minice a ndéantar ionsaithe fuatha ar bhonn reiligiúin orthu ar fud na hEorpa. Cuimhnímis nach staitisticí atá i gceist ach íobartaigh atá ag fulaingt: ní féidir cur suas le hionsaithe ar theaghlaigh mar gheall ar a gcreideamh.

Agus an saol corrach atá inniu ann — tá an teannas sa Mheánoirthear ag gabháil chun donais agus tá Gaza á scrios go fóill — caithfimid bheith ar ár bhfaichill ar an réamhchlaonadh agus ar an naimhdeas le daoine mar gheall ar a gcreideamh nó a gcúlra. Níl mionlaigh ciontach as an ghéarchéim sa chostas maireachtála, agus na daoine sin a deir a mhalairt, caithfear iad a bhréagnú gach am is gach áit. Déanann daoine ón iomad cultúr, creideamh agus traidisiún, déanann sin pobail na hÉireann a shaibhriú; cuireann siad go mór lenár sochaí — go díreach mar a chuireann na hÉireannaigh le pobail eile ar fud an domhain.

Nuair a rinneadh ionsaithe ciníocha ar mhionlaigh ar na samhraí deireanacha anseo, sheas gnáthdhaoine gualainn má gualainn leis na híobartaigh. Níl aon áit ag an ioslamafóibe inár bpobail. Níl aon áit ag an chiníochas ná ag an leithcheal¬ — an frith-sheimíteachas, an homafóibe nó an fuath ar mhná ¬ — sna pobail s’againne. Cuimhníonn na laetha idirnáisiúnta seo dúinn gur saibhre an tsochaí againn de thairbhe na héagsúlachta. Tá páirt le himirt againn go léir leis an chaoinfhulaingt agus an urraim a chothú ar fud na hÉireann. Nuair a sheasaimid le chéile i gcoinne an chiníochais, tógfaimid todhchaí dhearfach fhorásach.

Bhí deireadh le Ramadan agus le féile Eid al-Fitr Déardaoin seo caite. Mar sin de, tapaím an deis seo le "Eid Mubarak" a ghuí do dhaoine Moslamacha ar fud na hÉireann.

Mr Carroll: Before I come on to my statement, I want to briefly wish William Mooney well. He has been an usher in the Building for, I think, 28 years. He certainly helped me to navigate the Building when I was lost in the first few years. I wish him well in his retirement. I am sure that others do, too.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Carroll: Today, it has been reported in the news that private rents have increased by 50% in the past five years. That is obviously shocking and appalling and should be condemned, but it is not entirely surprising. The cost of private rents is something that my party and I have been banging on about for many years. Indeed, in 2022, we tried to limit the increase in rents through amendments to the Private Tenancies Bill, but all Executive parties, effectively, voted them down. The Executive parties have failed on private rents: in my view, they do not want to challenge private landlords.

We have gone way beyond the point of not wanting to annoy or aggravate people. This is a question of power and what parties here will do to challenge power and wealth: the power and wealth of private landlords. As you know, Mr Speaker, I am developing a Member's Bill on housing that, hopefully, after going through the hurdles, will deal with some of the problems. It will aim to freeze rents for a period of years, introduce a no-fault eviction ban to ensure that people cannot be evicted by their landlords and, over a period, introduce rent reductions.

It is the view of many people, not just me, that the Minister for Communities has absolutely failed to tackle the housing crisis, particularly in the private rented sector, hence my Member's Bill and other people's action on housing. The Minister, alongside his party colleagues and others, has tried to pour cold water over rent controls and caps. To paraphrase him, he says that they do not work and that he fears that they would be counterproductive. I say this: rent controls do not work for landlords, but they clearly work for private renters by reducing the money that comes out of their account every month and, obviously, putting more money in their pocket.

To the Minister and his officials, if they are listening, I say this: rent controls exist in various countries, including Denmark, Malta, Sweden, the Netherlands, Spain, Germany and France. There are rent pressure zones in the South. They are not perfect, but they exist. Many North American and Canadian cities also have them. The North cannot continue to be a laggard in that regard. It is time for rent controls and rent reductions to ease the pressure on private renters and put more money back in their pockets.

Mr Buckley: Week on week, the House continues to see the glaring failures of the Sinn Féin Economy Minister, whether it be her continued support for the so-called 'good jobs' Bill, which does not have the support of a single major business or organisation in Northern Ireland, or the failure to understand that £81 million was there for the taking for an energy support scheme, a fact that was dragged out in the Committee by my colleague Phillip Brett as Chair.

She also continues to cover up information on significant job losses to the Northern Ireland economy.

In January, I revealed to the Committee that 300 jobs were lost from the major US service firm Cantor Fitzgerald. Neither the Committee nor the community knew about that, and the Minister's officials attempted to ensure that none of us got to the bottom of it. The permanent secretary denied that the Committee had asked for the appropriate information, and the Department selectively briefed the BBC before the scrutiny Committee meeting. However, with each piece of information, we are starting to get to the bottom of what happened.

It is sad that only through freedom of information requests have I been able to start to gain a picture. Invest NI and the Department hold over 11,000 records that pertain to Cantor Fitzgerald. On Friday, the first responses to my freedom of information requests started to come through to me, and they revealed a scenario of which we were not aware: on 25 February 2025, the Minister met Cantor Fitzgerald representatives in this very Building with her officials. The Minister is on record as saying at the meeting:

Wow. Her Sinn Féin-appointed spad is in the meeting note as suggesting the potential comms to go out on the announcement. Fourteen days later, the Minister travelled to New York, and 300 highly paid jobs were lost to the Northern Ireland economy. What happened in those 14 days? Why did a significant investment that, freedom of information requests have shown, Invest NI evidently went to such lengths to secure go missing?

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Buckley: There are questions to be answered —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up. Aoife Finnegan.

Mr Buckley: — and we will hold the Minister accountable.

Ms Finnegan: I rise to mark two important anniversaries: 100 years of the Easter lily and 110 years of Cumann na mBan. The Easter lily has long been worn as a symbol of respect for those who gave their lives in the 1916 rising and in the years that followed in pursuit of Irish freedom. It is a simple symbol but one that speaks to sacrifice, courage and a belief in Ireland's future.

We also mark 110 years of Cumann na mBan. Those women stood at the heart of the 1916 rising and the struggle that followed. Cumann na mBan was made up of ordinary Irish women who did extraordinary things for Irish freedom, such as Constance Markievicz, Winifred Carney, Kathleen Lynn and Margaret Skinnider. They did not stand on the sidelines; they led, organised and fought. Their contribution was central, and it must always be recognised.

As we mark the anniversaries, we think of the generation of 1916 and the vision that it held for a free, fair and united Ireland. That work did not end then, and it does not end now, so, today and in the days to come, wear your Easter lily with pride.

Mr Brooks: I rise to mark the passing of Mr John Lockett OBE, who was a former principal of Grosvenor Grammar School; indeed, he was the principal during my time at the school. As someone who had health difficulties that disrupted my education, I benefited not only from the environment of academic excellence that he developed at the school but from the care and compassion that was shown to every pupil there.

Mr Lockett's career in education was marked by dedication and steady progression. Before arriving at Grosvenor, he taught at Lurgan boys' school, where he rose to become the head of biology. He later moved to Banbridge Academy, taking on the leadership of careers and sixth form. In 1989, he joined Grosvenor as vice principal, and, four years later, in 1993, he became principal, which was a role that he held with distinction for 15 years.

Those years were ones of remarkable change at the school. Mr Lockett was a man of vision and determination, guiding the school through significant transformation. One of the most notable milestones during Mr Lockett's leadership was the opening of the Ken Reid science and technology block in 1999, which was a building from which I benefited. That was only the beginning, however. Through his guidance and commitment, Grosvenor evolved into the outstanding campus that we see today at Marina Park. He played a central role in the major development of the school's facilities.

As I said, what made those achievements truly special was that, throughout all that change, Mr Lockett never lost sight of what mattered most: the pupils. He was deeply committed to ensuring that every young person had the opportunity to succeed academically and beyond the classroom, and his passion for the school was evident in everything that he did. The school noted that he gave of his time generously, attended every school event and was a familiar and reassuring presence at Saturday morning sports fixtures.

In 2009, Mr Lockett was rightly awarded an OBE in recognition of his exceptional contribution to education. It was a fitting tribute to a career defined by service, leadership and excellence. Even after his retirement, he remained closely connected to Grosvenor and regularly attended carol services, prize distributions, sporting events and, most recently, the 80th anniversary gala dinner; indeed, I last met him at the Ulster Hall at a concert to celebrate that milestone.

Beyond his school life, the school says, he had a great love of travel, particularly railway journeys, and was a dedicated member of the Railway Preservation Society of Ireland. Mr Lockett will be remembered for his enthusiasm, sharp wit and wisdom. Above all, he was a true gentleman whose legacy lives on in the school and in the many lives that he influenced. Many of us owe him a great debt. He will be greatly missed.

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

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. April is Bowel Cancer Awareness Month. As we approach the start of the month, I urge everyone to take part in the bowel cancer screening programme. Northern Ireland is the only country in the UK that does not offer screening to people under the age of 60, so I take the opportunity to call on the Minister of Health, who is sitting in front of me, to redress that imbalance.

Bowel cancer screening in Northern Ireland is currently offered only to people aged 60 to 74. The rest of the UK offers screening to people aged 50 to 74 in line with the UK National Screening Committee's recommendations. As a result, people in Northern Ireland have fewer opportunities for early detection of bowel cancer than those elsewhere in the UK. The charity Bowel Cancer UK has spoken out about the disparity and called on Stormont to act now to help those most in need.

We already know that the drug that can help sufferers of early-stage prostate cancer has not been made available in Northern Ireland but is available in the rest of the UK. Compared with those living in the rest of our Union, Northern Ireland is once again giving its citizens a raw deal. I therefore call on the Health Minister to put in place a screening programme for that younger age group urgently.

Bowel cancer is the UK's fourth most common cancer. It causes the second-highest number of deaths of any cancer, and cases are rising among younger people year-on-year. Around 17,700 people in the UK die from the disease every year, but, if it is caught early, people have a much better chance of survival. Screening saves lives. That is why we must expand the screening service in Northern Ireland.

Mr Speaker: It is nice to see you, Mr Mooney.

Mr Brett: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Hold on a minute. It is nice to see Mr Mooney here. He has been around for about 25 years, which is nearly as long as I have been here. We will miss your face, William. I do not normally mention such things, but we all know you so well.

Thank you.

Mr Brett: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have stolen my thunder somewhat, but, with your indulgence, I will take a few moments to recognise a lifetime of service to this institution, to our democracy and to MLAs by our senior usher Mr Billy Mooney. Billy has been here since the inception of the institutions and has treated every Member who has graced these corridors with respect and dignity.

I am a relatively new Member of the House, and Billy has ensured that I have acted appropriately and entered the Chamber when I am able to do so. Today marks his final day in service to the House and its Members, having first come here in 1998. I wish Billy many years of happy retirement and, on behalf of the whole House, thank him for his service to us and to our democracy.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Speaker: I think that he is embarrassed by all this, but that is typical of the man.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): The Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2021 places an onus on my Department to introduce legislation in Northern Ireland to set a minimum price for the sale or supply of intoxicating liquor and to prohibit its sale or supply below that price. If it has not been reasonably practicable for the legislation to be introduced, the 2021 Act requires me to make a statement to the Assembly on why it is not reasonably practicable so to do. The deadline for that is by the third anniversary of the Act coming into force: 6 April 2026. As the Assembly will be in recess for Easter, I make that statement today. I very much regret having to make the statement rather than introducing legislation on setting a minimum price, as envisioned in the 2021 Act and supported by the Assembly at that time.

All of us will know that alcohol use has long been an accepted part of our social life and culture. Perhaps, to some extent, we have become desensitised to the harm that it causes. To put it in context, each year in Northern Ireland, alcohol causes twice as many deaths as illicit drugs. Much of our current activity is inevitably focused on addressing the harms of alcohol use. The prevention of those harms is more challenging, however the evidence strongly points to pricing initiatives, particularly minimum unit pricing (MUP), as providing one of the most effective ways of reducing such harms. That is why MUP has been under discussion for a number of years and has been proposed by multiple Health Ministers.

My Department consulted on MUP in February 2022, and a summary of the responses was published in 2023. At the same time, updated independent modelling was commissioned to estimate the impact of MUP in Northern Ireland at a variety of price levels. Subsequently, I considered a full options paper, which set out a range of potential ways forward on using pricing mechanisms to reduce the harm that alcohol causes. The paper considered the consultation responses, the updated modelling and evidence and evaluations from around the world. From that very robust evidence base, I concluded that MUP, while not a panacea, would be an effective and targeted way to address the issue. I appeared before the Health Committee in October 2024 and again in February 2025, setting out my belief that we needed to progress legislation to introduce MUP. The Chief Medical Officer also gave evidence to the Health Committee as recently as January 2026, briefing members on the latest evidence and his professional public health position, supporting the introduction of minimum unit pricing.

Primary legislation had been provisionally scheduled for introduction in 2026-27. Unfortunately, however, despite my efforts to provide information and address any concerns, it has not been possible to secure Executive agreement. Sadly, we have now reached the point where legislation for MUP is no longer deliverable in this mandate. That will have an impact on many vulnerable and at-risk people in Northern Ireland.

The British Heart Foundation recently published a report estimating the burden of alcohol on Northern Ireland. That report estimated that 676 people die each year as a direct result of their alcohol consumption. Around half of those deaths are from alcohol-specific causes — those deaths are, by definition, caused by alcohol consumption. The remainder of the deaths are from conditions where alcohol is not the only cause but plays a contributory role. Alcohol-related liver disease is by far the single largest cause, accounting for 248 deaths a year, which is over a third of the total. The report illustrates the breadth of conditions where alcohol plays a direct role in increasing mortality rates, including injuries, seven different cancers and a range of cardiovascular conditions.

The report also shows that, each year, an estimated 7,426 hospital admissions are caused by alcohol consumption. Alcohol-specific causes make up the biggest group of admissions, accounting for over 50% of the total. Alcohol-attributable cancer admissions are the second-largest contributor, accounting for almost one in five admissions.

The report also records that the 25% of drinkers who exceed the UK Chief Medical Officer's guidelines account for 80% of all alcohol-related hospital admissions and 78% of all deaths caused by alcohol. Indeed, over half of all alcohol harms are concentrated among the 10% who drink at the highest levels, and the modelling and evaluations show that MUP targets those groups and highlights its benefits in addressing harm and reducing inequalities. That is why there is wide support for the measure across Northern Ireland. I was delighted to speak at the Northern Ireland Chest, Heart and Stroke MUP event at Parliament Buildings in November of last year. The event showed strong support for MUP across the public health sector, elected Members and the community and voluntary sectors. Their support has been amplified by the recent open letters from the Noncommunicable Disease Alliance and the Alcohol Health Alliance UK.

The evidence presented at the event clearly sets out that an MUP would reduce alcohol consumption and lead to fewer people being admitted to hospital and dying as a result of their drinking. For example, in Scotland, it is estimated that MUP has led to 120 fewer alcohol deaths every year. In addition, the event reinforced that the impacts of MUP are targeted, with the greatest benefits being seen among the heaviest drinkers and those living in poverty, meaning that a minimum unit price would help to reduce health inequalities. For example, while the impact depends on the level at which MUP is set, modelling estimates that a 65p MUP would reduce alcohol consumption by 8·5%, with the largest reduction coming from harmful drinkers and increasing-risk drinkers; increase spending by only 1·9% for moderate drinkers and 2·3% for increasing-risk drinkers but reduce spending for higher-risk drinkers; and lead to a reduction of 82 alcohol-related deaths a year and a reduction of 3,482 alcohol-related hospital admissions a year. It would reduce crime by an estimated 3,188 offences a year, reduce workforce absences by an estimated 58,910 days per annum and result in healthcare savings of £117·4 million over 20 years.

I have always been clear that MUP is not a silver bullet, but it is a proven, effective tool to reduce alcohol harm. It is also surrounded by misunderstandings, and it is important to address those. First, MUP is not a tax; it is simply a way of ensuring that the price of alcohol reflects its alcoholic strength and its potential harm. It will not affect the price of alcohol in the on-trade, which means pubs and clubs, nor will it impact on the price of products above the MUP. It does not target those on lower incomes; it is the heaviest drinkers who consume the cheapest alcohol and come to the most harm. That is consistent across alcohol types and for those in poverty and those not in poverty. Finally, there is no evidence that it causes people to shift to illicit alcohol or other drugs.
It is also important to note that MUP is not focused on dependent drinkers. Dependent drinkers need timely access to high-quality treatment and support services. MUP targets the wider cohort of harmful and hazardous drinkers: those who drink above the UK Chief Medical Officer's guidelines but are not dependent. They are a significant population, and they come to harm; thus, MUP is a highly targeted measure.

Through our wider substance use strategy, I am working to deliver improvements to our alcohol treatment system to help all those who are affected by alcohol harm. That is essential with or without MUP. The evidence shows, however, that by cutting off the supply of cheap alcohol, MUP is likely to reduce the number of people who become dependent in the future and reduce demand on our already overloaded health and social care (HSC) system. In fact, there is also evidence that increasing alcohol prices delays the initiation of alcohol use, slows younger people's progression towards consuming larger amounts and reduces heavy episodic use of alcohol among them.

From my perspective, I feel that not introducing minimum unit pricing is a missed opportunity — an opportunity that would have allowed the Assembly to make a meaningful difference to reducing alcohol-related harms and inequalities across our region. Therefore, I reiterate my regret that I am making this statement today rather than introducing legislation.

Finally, while there is clearly insufficient time left to legislate in this mandate, even if there were Executive agreement, it is my fervent hope that an incoming Health Minister and Executive will be able to introduce legislation early in the next mandate to address this important public health issue. I commend the statement to the House.

Mr McGrath: Minister, it is highly regrettable that you are having to make this statement today despite the scientific evidence that supports minimum unit pricing and the moral argument that will undoubtedly be made by not introducing the legislation. You have said that you were unable to get Executive support for the legislation. Can you set out for us who it is who is opposing this at the Executive table, what scientific evidence they are bringing to the table to justify that, what moral evidence they are bringing for that cause and whether they have any suggested message for the dozens of families that will be impacted on by the death of a loved one because we are not introducing this now?

Mr Nesbitt: The Member will know that the business of the Executive is confidential. However, I think that it is very much in the public domain that my party, the Ulster Unionists, supports minimum unit pricing. I think that it is in the public domain that Sinn Féin supports minimum unit pricing, that the Alliance Party supports minimum unit pricing and that the Social Democratic and Labour Party support minimum unit pricing.

The scientific and moral arguments have been made by me. I commend to Members, if they have not seen it yet, a report from the University of Sheffield that is specific to estimating the burden of alcohol on the health of Northern Ireland. I think that there is ample evidence to show that minimum unit pricing works. The Member will know that I have a passion for tackling health inequalities. The formula that we use is that it is 20% health, 40% socio-economic, 10% environment and 30% behaviours. Within that 30%, alcohol misuse is right up at the top of harm.

Mr McGuigan (The Chairperson of the Committee for Health): To put it on public record, Sinn Féin indeed supports the introduction of minimum unit pricing.

The Minister, in his statement and his answer, has outlined some of the scientific and medical advice, and we heard at the Committee the Chief Medical Officer give clear evidence of that. On the evidence on reducing alcohol consumption and a reduction in alcohol harm, Minister, do you share my frustration that, once again — you did not mention it, but I will — the DUP has opted to ignore the scientific evidence and health advice and that people's health outcomes will suffer as a result of this decision? Ultimately, as others have said, people will die alcohol-related deaths because the DUP is blocking this very important health legislation getting through the Executive.

Mr Nesbitt: As I referenced in passing in my opening remarks, several Health Ministers have tried to introduce minimum unit pricing. That includes at least two Ministers who were members of the Democratic Unionist Party, yet it appears that that did not find favour. As a matter of principle, I can understand why any single party in this Chamber might not support any particular specific piece of legislation, but I think that the right way to do it is to allow the legislation on to the Floor of the House and have the debate. If that party wins the debate, so be it, but let us be mature enough to have the debate in the Chamber and to have scrutiny in the statutory Committee.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Minister, for the statement. I know that you will agree that preventing alcohol harm is part of a whole suite of measures and not just one measure. To be absolutely clear, it is 18 months since the independent review of tier-4 drugs and alcohol addiction services in Northern Ireland was published, and there is still a lack of targeted detox and rehab services for young people, women and their children. Will you outline, Minister, when you are going to address those situations?

Mr Nesbitt: Mr Speaker, that is pure deflection.

Mr Donnelly: As the Minister said, the Alliance Party is strongly in favour of minimum unit pricing, and I know this to be a personal disappointment to the Minister today. It is a huge missed opportunity. Previous Health Ministers, including Jim Wells, supported minimum unit pricing and its benefits. The current Minister has said that minimum unit pricing was supported in the Assembly in 2021, and he supports its introduction, yet it is still being blocked. Does the failure to deliver minimum unit pricing not illustrate the wider problem of veto politics preventing evidence-based public health policy?

Mr Nesbitt: As I said, in my opinion, the best way to express disagreement with any policy or legislation is to allow it on to the Floor of the House, make your case and try to win your argument. I regret that we are unable to do that. We will be going to the polls in just over a year's time. Think of the number of people who might still be alive if we had introduced minimum unit pricing.

Ms D Armstrong: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, it is deeply regrettable that political arrogance and deadlock have overridden clinical and public health advice in this instance. Will the Minister confirm whether he made his most senior professional advisers available to meet the DUP to try to secure a way forward?

Mr Nesbitt: The Chief Medical Officer, Professor Sir Michael McBride, has been at this much longer than I have and is at least as passionate as I am about the introduction of minimum unit pricing for alcohol. Yes, he was available to any MLA, and I believe that he actually had a meeting with the Democratic Unionist Party.

Mrs Dillon: Minister, in the Assembly yesterday, we debated a DUP motion on tackling waste and inefficiency in government. Given that a British Heart Foundation report found that, each year, an estimated 7,426 admissions to hospital are caused by alcohol consumption, will you agree that the DUP blocking minimum unit pricing will cost our health service dearly through those who have to be admitted to hospital, but, more importantly, as you outlined, it will cost families a loved one? It will cost families the person who may be the most important person in their home; the person who was bringing the money in. It also costs women and girls. We know that violence against women and girls is often —

Mr Speaker: Minister.

Mrs Dillon: — perpetrated by those with excess alcohol.

Mr Nesbitt: The whole concept of shifting left is to get from hospital to community, with a focus on prevention where possible and early intervention where necessary. Minimum unit pricing is entirely consistent with the shift left, taking the pressure off the hospitals — as the Member said, over 7,000 admissions — and saving lives.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Minister for his statement. He referred to revised modelling by the University of Sheffield in 2023. At the heart of that study was an acknowledgement that the estimates were unlikely to reflect the impact of minimum unit pricing on people who are addicted to alcohol and that additional support would be needed for that group if the policy was pursued. Did the Minister follow that advice when bringing plans for minimum unit pricing to the Executive? If not, will he give a concrete commitment to expanding inpatient and residential rehabilitation services?

Mr Nesbitt: Just for the record, the report from the University of Sheffield that I referred to was from September 2025. It was, indeed, 2023 research, but once again, like her colleague Mrs Dodds, the Member is choosing to go for the other half of the equation, which is about what we do to support drinkers who are in need of support. This debate is about minimum unit pricing.

Ms Flynn: I thank the Minister for his statement. The word "regrettable" has been used a number of times by a number of representatives. I am going to use the word "disgrace". It is a disgrace that this piece of proposed legislation has been blocked. It has continued to be blocked at the Executive by the DUP. We have the opportunity and potential to save people's lives. People continue to die because of alcohol, year-on-year. Since 2014, there has been an 80% increase in the number of deaths due to alcohol. It rose to 397 in 2024. We now have an opportunity to change that and save lives. Minister, do you share my disbelief and frustration that the DUP would block this legislation, which gives us the opportunity to save lives?

Mr Nesbitt: I believe very firmly that the legislation would have a significant impact on the 30% of behaviours that are part of the formula for tackling health inequalities. I am not in the business of trying to censor a Member's expressing himself or herself with their own language in their reaction to the position that we find ourselves in.

Ms Forsythe: The Minister's statement referenced Public Health Scotland's assessment of the impact of the policy in Scotland, including headline estimates about a reduction in alcohol-related deaths and admissions. However, despite a minimum unit price being introduced in 2018, the National Records of Scotland reported in 2024 that the number of alcohol-specific deaths in Scotland was at its highest level since 2008. Minister, how do you square that circle?

Mr Nesbitt: As part of the introduction of minimum unit pricing for alcohol in Scotland, a five-year evaluation of the impact of MUP was commissioned to inform future decisions by the Scottish Government. The evaluation sets out strong evidence that MUP reduced deaths directly caused by alcohol consumption in Scotland, compared with what would have happened in the absence of MUP. The overall reduction was driven by reductions in deaths due to chronic causes. A chronic condition or cause is one that develops slowly and may worsen over time, such as alcoholic liver disease.

While the Scottish evaluation also concludes that MUP may be associated with relative increases in deaths due to acute conditions, an acute alcohol-attributable condition is one that is likely to be associated with an episode of excessive alcohol consumption, such as alcohol intoxication. There was considerable uncertainty around that finding, which was not statistically significant.

Mr Kingston: I thank the Minister for his answers so far. Further to the previous question, I refer you, Minister, to an evaluation by Public Health Scotland in 2023, which found "no consistent evidence" of any impact from MUP on:

Does the Minister believe that those trends should be ignored when considering the long-term effectiveness of minimum unit pricing?

Mr Nesbitt: Scotland's evidence shows a reduction in wholly alcohol-attributable hospital admissions due to chronic causes. There is also strong and consistent evidence of a reduction in alcohol consumption. Total alcohol sales reduced by 3%, which was driven entirely by a reduction in sales through the off-trade; in other words, supermarkets and shops. The households that purchased the most alcohol prior to MUP also reduced their purchasing the most after implementation.

While Ireland has not yet completed a full evaluation, Alcohol Action Ireland has concluded that there are promising early results, including a 5% drop in consumption in 2022, compared with the pre-pandemic level.

All the evidence that I have seen is heavily weighted towards the positive impact of the minimum unit price of alcohol.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, it is genuinely shocking to see the DUP's deflecting attention away from its brazen and shameless blocking of the proposal. Truly, the party of Paisley has become the party of Farage, putting particularly vulnerable and alcohol-dependent people's lives at risk. Minister, have you exhausted all the possibilities of clearing the proposal through the Executive? Specifically, have you used the so-called three-Minister rule in order to force it on to the agenda, or has it been on the agenda and then been blocked by the DUP? I understand that there are limitations on what you can say, but it would be helpful if you could indicate whether all options have been exhausted.

Mr Nesbitt: I believe that I have exhausted all the appropriate options. Perhaps I was naive: I felt that this was, to use the common parlance, a no-brainer, and I was very surprised to find that it did not simply pass on the nod through the Executive. I then took whatever actions I thought were appropriate. A number of papers were presented to Executive colleagues.

The Chief Medical Officer was more than happy to engage, because, as I said, he is at least as passionate as I am about the issue and has been campaigning on it for much longer.

The Member referred to "Paisley versus Farage": some people have said to me, "The party of the devil's buttermilk now refuses to support minimum unit pricing. Who knew?".

Mr Harvey: How many alcohol-dependent people get prescriptions for alcohol? What is the maximum weekly limit on the value of such prescriptions?

Mr Nesbitt: I have no idea.

Mr Gaston: Will the Minister detail how much public money has been spent to date on developing the minimum unit pricing of alcohol in Northern Ireland, given that the 2021 Act created a legal duty to introduce legislation, which, five years later, the Executive have again failed to deliver?

Mr Nesbitt: I assure the Member that I will ask officials that question. It is not something on which I have been particularly focused; my focus has been on trying to get agreement at the Executive table to introduce the legislation.

Mr Chambers: At a time when the Assembly and the Executive have been widely ridiculed for failing to produce legislation, does the Minister agree that, regardless of any party's position on MUP, it is a gross abuse of political power for one party to single-handedly veto legislation that would undoubtedly have changed and saved many lives by preventing it from even coming to the Chamber for debate and scrutiny? Has the Minister heard one compelling argument from the Democratic Unionist Party as to why the legislation should not proceed?

Mr Nesbitt: I have tried to ascertain why some people may not be in favour of the introduction of minimum unit pricing. I have not heard an argument that I find convincing and compelling. As for the Member's other point, I have already stated my view that the best way in which to express opposition to proposed legislation or policy is allow it to come to the Floor of the House for debate. Often in the House, we debate with the objective of victory for our side, but, sometimes, the purpose of debate is to make progress. This would have been progress.

Mr Carroll: My family and my community have been deeply affected by alcoholism. I am well aware of its dangers but remain unconvinced that this is the best way of dealing with it.

Minister, will you confirm that, with minimum unit pricing, any money raised would not have gone into the health service or to the state but would have stayed in supermarkets' bank accounts? Will you also confirm that, if minimum unit pricing were to be introduced, it would affect drinks such as cider, vodka and other spirits but leave untouched champagne and other high-value drinks?

Mr Nesbitt: The purpose is certainly to target cheap white ciders and cheap beers. I am told that our supermarkets sell small bottles of water that are more expensive than tins of beer. When it comes to impact, I know that some people felt that minimum unit pricing would affect their local pub, but that is absolutely not the case. If, for example, we were to set a minimum unit price of 65p, a pub could not sell a pint of plain for less than £1·30. If the Member can show me a pub selling Guinness for £1·30, I will look forward to recess.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for his statement. I was going to say that the DUP follows evidence when it suits it, but we and the public are well aware that the DUP does not follow evidence to inform policy.

It is really important to listen to the voices of people affected. As someone whose grandfather had an alcohol addiction and eventually succumbed to the disease in hospital, I saw at first hand what alcohol can do to a person's mind, body and family. In all likelihood, more than the estimated £117·4 million could be saved. How many lives could be saved by using that money for other preventative measures or to tackle other diseases, such as cancer?

Mr Nesbitt: The Member is aware that the worst moment of my tenure — my 21 or 22 months as Minister — came last September, when I had to say that we could not introduce the real living wage as promised. Mrs Dodds made the point, with which I very much agree, that, if we can find £5 million of savings somewhere, we could introduce 24/7 stroke thrombectomy services, which would impact on around 160 lives per annum — people who suffer permanent damage from a stroke because it happens to occur outside the opening hours of the existing thrombectomy service. Yes, whether or not £117 million is a low estimate, I could very quickly draw up for you a list of services and benefits that would spread across the Health and Social Care system.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister for his statement. We are joined in the Public Gallery by the brilliant students from St Clement's College in Limerick city. What a wonderful item of business for them to observe; I am sure that they have opinions on it.

The legislation does not impact on the price of alcohol in pubs, bars, restaurants and hotels; it is aimed only at the cheap, nasty stuff that is so destructive. The SDLP is strongly supportive of minimum unit pricing.

Minister, is it not a damning indictment of the Executive that yet another piece of important, promised legislation has fallen by the wayside?

Mr Nesbitt: I repeat that it is a matter of regret for me. I join the Member in welcoming the students from St Clement's, who live in a jurisdiction on the island where there is minimum unit pricing on alcohol, and that is good for people's health.

Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister of Health.

I remind Members that, if they are not in the Chamber for all of the statement, they will be called last. That has been the practice in the Assembly for many years.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): I will make a statement on my visit last week to the United States. My goal was a simple one: to highlight the remarkable connection that exists between Northern Ireland and the United States and, in doing so, to bring benefit to our people. This year, we have a unique opportunity to do just that. The 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence represents not only a milestone for our American friends but a chance for us to shine a light on our shared history; our enduring cultural connections; and the immense contributions made by people from this part of the world to the founding and shaping of the United States.

I believe that relationships develop and grow because of commonalities: the connections that we share; the traits and attributes that define us; and the ties that bind us together. For us, those ties run deep and reach back hundreds of years. They are woven through the stories of 250,000 resilient Ulster Scots who, in the 18th century, left our familiar shores with little more than their determination, drive and Christian faith. As a result, the Ulster-Scots legacy in America is vast and deep. More than 25 million Americans today identify as being Scots Irish or of Ulster-Scots descent. Their forebears brought with them values of hard work, independence, faith and a fierce commitment to liberty. As America marks that historic anniversary, it is essential that we tell our story proudly and with purpose in order to strengthen tourism, cultural exchange and economic ties.

My visit began in Savannah, Georgia, a city with particularly strong historical links to early Ulster-Scots settlers. From the 1730s, many from Ulster arrived in the region, helping to establish settlements such as Queensborough and contributing significantly to the agricultural, religious and community life of colonial Georgia. At Georgia Southern University, I presented a copy of the 'News Letter' from the 18th century that highlighted the passenger ships that were sailing from Belfast and Larne to Savannah. I spoke about the impact of Ulster settlers on that community and encouraged people there to think of their own ancestry and the opportunity to explore more by visiting Northern Ireland, particularly the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland (PRONI). I also welcomed the opportunity to meet local congressman Buddy Carter to again emphasise the role of people from Ulster. We discussed how our shared heritage continues to foster goodwill and mutual understanding between our peoples, and how events, exhibitions and storytelling can bring more visitors from the American south to experience Northern Ireland's landscapes, festivals and rich culture.

From Georgia, I travelled to Washington DC for a series of events, including at the UK embassy, the US Capitol and the White House. At this time of year, Northern Ireland enjoys unparalleled access to senior US political and business leaders. It was right that we engaged and took the opportunity to turn up, stand up and speak up for Northern Ireland. Each of those occasions allowed me, alongside the deputy First Minister, to speak about investment opportunities and the unique appeal of our region as a destination for heritage tourism rooted in transatlantic stories.

A particularly moving part of the visit was our time at Arlington National Cemetery. There, I laid a wreath at the grave of Field Marshal Sir John Greer Dill, the distinguished Lurgan-born military leader who served as chief of the British joint staff mission in Washington during the Second World War. His close collaboration with American counterparts, including General George Marshall, helped forge and sustain the Anglo-American alliance at one of its most critical moments. Standing in that place of solemn remembrance surrounded by the graves of so many who served freedom, it was a powerful reminder of the sacrifices made across generations and the unbreakable bonds that tie our nations together.

On Wednesday evening, I was privileged to co-host a special reception with the America250 commission on Capitol Hill. Over 250 distinguished guests attended, including senior politicians from both sides of the House and Senate, business leaders, cultural figures and representatives of the diaspora. Among them was former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, other commissioners and key influencers. The event overlooked the Houses of Congress, which provided a fitting backdrop against which to celebrate the Ulster-American connection.

In my speech that evening, I outlined the extraordinary role played by early Ulster Scots in the birth of the United States. I highlighted figures such as John Dunlap, born in Strabane, County Tyrone, who, as the official printer to the Continental Congress, worked through the night of 4 July 1776 to produce the first broadside copies of the Declaration of Independence, which were distributed far and wide. I also spoke of Charles Thomson, born near Gorteade, Upperlands, County Londonderry, who served as secretary to the Continental Congress for 15 years. Thomson's hands certified the document. His name appears alongside that of John Hancock on the original printed declaration, and he personally delivered the news to George Washington that Congress had chosen him as the nation's first president.

The reception was not just about looking back; it was about looking forward. During the event, I said:

That was my message to those who were in the room that night. It was also the message that I shared throughout the week to US media organisations, including to eight million people in the New York media market, which carried a promotional feature on my work in this area live during the St Patrick’s Day parade coverage. That is real standout and promotion for Northern Ireland. It demonstrates that turning up can make a difference.

That is not all. Today, I am pleased to announce that, building on the excellent cooperation with institutions such as the Library of Congress, I have secured the loan of key historical records for display in Northern Ireland. They include an original printed Declaration of Independence and a letter from Charles Thomson, as well as other historical documents relating to Northern Ireland. The documents will allow our citizens, schoolchildren and visitors to see tangible evidence of how intertwined our histories have been for over two and a half centuries. That will form part of a broader programme of commemorative activities this year supported by funding that I have allocated for local projects that highlight Ulster-Scots and shared contributions to American independence.

I am particularly looking forward to a major new exhibition this autumn, to be hosted by the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland (PRONI), showcasing original historical documents, including those on loan from US institutions. The US audience is a core constituency for PRONI, and these developments will help drive footfall for roots tourism and enable closer collaborative working with the US National Archives and the Library of Congress.

The visit has reinforced my conviction that relationships matter. Personal connections, shared stories and mutual respect build trust, open doors and create opportunities that last. In an increasingly global world, Northern Ireland must never miss a chance to tell our story — a story of resilience, creativity, innovation and deep historical links. By celebrating the Ulster Scots' role in America's founding, we not only honour our forebears but position Northern Ireland as a compelling destination for heritage tourism, a welcoming place for investment and a partner of choice for cultural and economic collaboration.

The ties between Ulster and America have never been stronger. As the US moves into the heart of the America250 celebration, let us seize the moment to showcase what makes Northern Ireland special: our people, our history and our bright future. I commend the statement to the Assembly.

Mr Speaker: A lot of Members want to ask questions, so, Members, I ask you to be succinct in asking your questions and you, Minister, to be succinct in your responses.

Mr Durkan: The Minister's musings sound like a travelogue, but I suppose that mimicking Bill Bryson is an improvement on mimicking Jamie Bryson. Yesterday, the DUP was outraged about the waste of public money and so-called vanity projects. To date, almost half a million pounds has been allocated to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the liberation of America from the shackles of the British Empire. How much did this trip cost? When people cannot afford to heat their homes — thanks to Donald Trump — does the Minister really believe that this was a good use of money and time?

Mr Lyons: The difference between me and Mr Durkan is that I do not believe that it is a waste of money to promote Northern Ireland. I do not believe that it is a waste of money to get standout for Northern Ireland, to promote the historical ties and to say to people, "Come on over to Northern Ireland". How short-sighted is the Member? He would rather that we stayed at home and put our heads in the sand and did not do the work that needs to be done. I do not have a final cost for the trip yet, but I will be more than happy to get it out there. I have not been behind in highlighting what it was before, because I know the value of the work that we are doing and the benefit that will come with it. Eight million people in the New York media market were able to see the coverage on NBC during the St Patrick's Day parade, and I have announced other initiatives today. I make no apology for Northern Ireland, because, unlike the Member, I want this place to work, and I will continue to promote it.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): Minister, people in our communities are struggling and worried about how they are going to heat their homes, and, at this point, you have £17 million to allocate to that. In the context of having only £17 million for that purpose, will you clarify the total budget for US250 activities, including the projects and events that you have mentioned today?

Mr Lyons: I have been doing the work on ensuring that we get support out to people. I could do that when I was in the US, because, unlike others, I do not pass it off to other people. I will stand up and do my part —

Mr Sheehan: Your job.

Mr Lyons: — to help people who are struggling in Northern Ireland. As Mr Sheehan rightly said, yes, I am doing my job. That is exactly what I am doing; I thank him for acknowledging that. I have the broadest portfolio and responsibilities of any Minister, and I am happy to take on the work of other Departments if they are not willing to stand up and promote Northern Ireland, or to ensure that we get support to those who need it. That work has gone on. I have a number of options on how we can help, but, first, I will need to get that money allocated to my Department. That takes an Executive agreement, not just a proclamation from the Finance Minister or any other Minister. I am working on those things. We will bring forward options.

I can do all aspects of my job at the same time. Promoting Northern Ireland is an important element of that, and I will continue to do it.

Mrs Cameron: I very much welcome the Minister's statement to the House this morning. It is good to hear about the contacts, the engagement and the positive message that he took to the US, as well as about the deliverables. Minister, what would you have achieved if you had just stayed at home?

Mr Lyons: I would have achieved absolutely nothing, which is what Members on the other side of the House have achieved. Look at what we have been able to do since we started the engagement with the America250 commission. That is an initiative that we took on because we recognised the opportunity for Northern Ireland to get that standout, because nobody contributed to the early foundation of the United States as much as people from Northern Ireland did. Their influence can be seen not just in those who were elected to the White House and to Congress but in the lives of all the people who left here and contributed so much. That is worth doing and worth promoting, and the very negative attitude of others across the House speaks volumes.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you, Minister. I do not know whether you are aware, but my degree was in history, so it is very important to me that we tell our story, and I am very excited about the exhibition that is coming up in PRONI. However, that story must be honest, and I have to say, Minister, that I am quite disappointed that you mentioned Charles Thomson alongside John Dunlap, a well-known slave owner and slave trader who used his printing presses to print newspapers to sell people in. Will you ensure that the PRONI exhibition is completely honest and tells the full story of some of our ancestors' shameful backgrounds?

Mr Lyons: Yes, it will tell the full story. In fact, one of the pieces of information that we will share will be letters from Ulster Presbyterians who were some of the first to speak out against slavery. I am more than happy to ensure that we tell the full story. We have to understand all of that and understand the impact that people from Northern Ireland had. There is a positive story to be told, and all of that will be on display.

Mr Chambers: Will the Minister agree that we are pushing at open doors in the USA when we are from Northern Ireland and speak with an accent that our American cousins seem to love to hear? Will he also agree that you need to cross the pond to push those open doors and that every penny spent is a penny well spent on behalf of the future economy of Northern Ireland?

Mr Lyons: I was speaking to some US political lobbyists when I was in America, and they could not believe the access that we get. It can be hard to get a meeting with a senator or a congressman. We had multiple people coming to multiple events that we hosted. That is important access. I have already continued to engage with some of those representatives, and I look forward to having them over here in Northern Ireland. Some have already accepted an invitation to come. That has been going out on their own social media channels as well. It is about promoting Northern Ireland; we get access, and I wanted to make sure that we took full advantage of that. We get that week, and it is time to use that and build on it so that we can benefit Northern Ireland and get more people here.

Look at the some of the largest employers in our constituencies. Take Foyle as an example. A lot of the major employers there are US companies or have US roots. Those jobs were developed over years by engaging and ensuring that those relationships were developed. It is important that we continue to do that, and I will continue to do it. [Interruption.]

Mrs Mason: Minister, you have now taken a number of trips to America during the US250 project. Do you realise that, while you are jetting back and forth to America, rubbing shoulders with warmongers and promoting your pet projects, people here are sitting at home in the cold, are afraid to turn on their radiators and are cutting back on very basic car journeys? Families here are struggling right now, and they will be concerned that you cannot tell us the cost of these projects today. You seem to want a pat on the back for doing your job. When will those people see the support that they need?

Mr Lyons: First, I do not need a pat on the back from the Member at all; that is what I have Phillip Brett for. [Laughter.]

However, I can say this: last week, even though I was in the United States, I continued doing my job. I engaged with my officials and put options together, and I will present options to the Executive. However, I will also require support from Executive colleagues. I am answering — [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order, Members.

Mr Lyons: I am answering the question, but they do not like the answer. I am saying that we are looking at options, because none of that is straightforward. There is no easy way. I know that I digress, Mr Speaker, but none of those options is an easy way in which to get money out to people. That is the very reason that Sinn Féin Ministers batted it over to me; they were unable to do it themselves. They said, "We will just give that to the Communities Minister", because I have been successful in the past in getting support out to people who need it. Therefore, I will play my part and find those options. For me, the important thing is that we give money to people who need it. We have mechanisms by which we can get the money out to those who are —.

Mr Sheehan: What is keeping you?

Mr Lyons: If you would listen to the answer, you might learn something.

Mr Sheehan: Stop waffling —.

Mr Lyons: You might learn something.

I do not want that money to go out just to people who are in receipt of benefits, because there are many struggling people out there who are not in receipt of benefits but are the working poor. They need that support. Those are the options that we are considering. That is not what the statement is about, but I am more than happy to answer those questions because I can look after all the different responsibilities in my Department. Unlike others, I will not pass that on to others just because it is difficult.

Mr K Buchanan: Minister, I welcome the work that you are doing here and in the USA. Some people are very animated today about the USA. It was not that long ago that they were mad to get over there to secure arms and bring them back here, but we will leave that there.

Is it possible that the Charles Thomson documents will come back to the people of Upperlands, so that young people and historians can see them in the flesh?

Mr Lyons: Of course, I would love to see those documents come to Mid Ulster, but, in the first instance, let us get them to Northern Ireland and ensure that we have the appropriate place for them to go. There is work to be done to ensure that we can display them in the right way and in accordance with the sensitivities of their age etc. It is an opportunity for people to see a little bit of that history, and it is also another hook to bring people to Northern Ireland. That is what is important. We talk about the challenges that we face when it comes to heating and all the economic pressures. Getting more tourists into Northern Ireland, and getting them to spend more money in Northern Ireland, is a good thing. That helps our economy overall. Therefore, people should welcome that work, rather than complain about it.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you for your statement, Minister. Given that your Department has not yet opened the public consultation on the culture, arts and heritage strategy, how can you explain the substantial funding that has already been allocated to US250 — one single heritage and culture initiative stream — when the public has not had the opportunity to give its views or shape the overarching policy that should guide such spending? How will that impact on our culture and heritage organisations and sectors here in Northern Ireland?

Mr Lyons: The Member tells me frequently about the need to invest more in culture, arts and heritage. That is exactly what I am doing. We are seeing investment through that work. That should be recognised. This is a unique year; it is the 250th anniversary year. It is a unique opportunity for us to piggyback on to that so that we can get benefit for Northern Ireland. Those funds are going arts, culture and heritage projects. I hope that that will be welcomed and that people can see the benefit that comes from it.

Mr McHugh: There is no doubt whatsoever about the enormous contribution that the Irish people have made to America over the past 250 years. It is only when you are in attendance in the likes of New York on St Patrick's Day — as I was, at my own expense — that you thoroughly appreciate the full extent and power of the Irish in America. However, we know that their positive contribution is not the whole story. When we talk about America250, will we also look at the negative aspects of the impact that many of our people made? I am thinking in particular of President Andrew Jackson, whose father was from Carrickfergus. He was the president who was responsible for what is known in American history as the "Trail of Tears", when the indigenous people were removed from their homes and transported to the other side of America. Thousands of them lost their lives. Will it embrace all of that part of the history, too, Minister?

Mr Lyons: Unlike the Member, I will not cherry-pick history or try to rewrite it. Rather, I will look at it in its entirety. Of course we are prepared to tell all those stories, but I make no apology for trying to be positive about Northern Ireland and the contributions that its people have made to the United States. The history is something —

Mr Sheehan: There was no place called Northern Ireland at that time.

Mr Lyons: — that we will tell in full.

If Mr Sheehan wants to ask a question, perhaps he can rise in his place and do so instead of interrupting. We know from where the frustration comes on the other side of the House. Those Members do not like Northern Ireland to standout. They do not like to see Northern Ireland being promoted, but I make no apology for doing just that.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Kingston: I commend the Minister for building on the strength of the historic contribution of Ulstermen and Ulsterwomen to the development of the United States of America and for winning benefits for us from that. Does the Minister agree that there is a stark difference between the performance of the First Minister and that of the deputy First Minister? One talks about being "First Minister for all", while the other does the work to represent the interests of the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr Lyons: Mr Kingston is absolutely right. Emma Little-Pengelly was a force out in the United States. She was unstoppable. She went from event to event to event, promoting and highlighting Northern Ireland. We should all be doing that, and we should all expect that from our leaders, but one was found wanting. Emma Little-Pengelly did her job, and she should be congratulated for that.

Ms Ferguson: Minister, the Irish people undoubtedly made a significant contribution to America and its struggle for freedom from English rule, particularly during the American War of Independence. Will America250 tell the entirety of that Irish contribution, or is it your intention to confine America250 to a narrow, political and single-community approach to those historic events?

Mr Lyons: I am happy to promote the contribution of anybody from here to the events of 250 years ago. The Member has to recognise, however, that it was overwhelmingly Ulster-Scots settlers — predominantly Presbyterians — who left these shores in the 17th century. It was their values that led to the work that they did and to the establishment of the United States. I am happy to use any connections or hooks that we have to promote Northern Ireland. This is a special year, given the 250th anniversary. The Ulster Scots and Scots Irish were the ones who played a significant role, so I am using that to the benefit of people here.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for his work in America to promote those historical links. I very much value the history, unlike other parties in the Chamber, which are determined to rewrite all aspects of history. Minister, your work in the area has been described by some Members as "sectarian" and a "vanity project". How do you respond to that?

Mr Lyons: Those comments demonstrate that they do not understand what they are talking about, because the programme brings benefit to everybody in Northern Ireland. It is not about me. It is no personal project of mine. Rather, it is something that I am trying to do for the benefit of everybody here. Let us remember that, until recent years, other Members had carried out such work. In the past, Sinn Féin and SDLP Ministers recognised the importance of engaging with the US to try to get more tourism and investment for Northern Ireland.

We have a unique opportunity this year because of the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the unique contribution made by those from what is now Northern Ireland. Why would we not use that? It is very disappointing to see such words being used to describe projects that have had such strong support from people across Northern Ireland from all communities, because people applied to the fund, and it was oversubscribed. Tourism Ireland is taking that work forward, as is National Museums NI. The universities see the value in it. It seems that the only people who do not see the value in it are those in the parties opposite.

Mr Speaker: I call Pat Sheehan.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Sheehan: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

Our people are under real financial pressure as a result of the illegal war that was started by a rapist and wanted war criminal.

Does the Minister now regret wasting £5,000 on a genealogy report on JD Vance's Ulster-Scots ancestry, which proved that there are no links whatsoever?

Mr Lyons: That is not true at all. It did not prove that. It is very important that the Member gets his facts right when he stands up. If he got his facts right, it would show that there is a first time for everything, because he consistently gets up in this place and does not have a clue what he is talking about. I know that he loves the sound of his own voice, so that brings him the comfort that he needs.

It is important to do that research work to explore the connections. I appeal to the Member: get over your hostility; get over your bitterness about what we are trying to do, and embrace the contribution of the Ulster Scots. The Member has nothing to fear from Ulster Scots: it is for everybody; embrace it and understand it. I would be more than happy to sit down with the Member and take him through the contributions that were made. I would be more than happy to educate the Member so that he has a better knowledge of the contribution that people from here made. I would teach him some of those historical facts. I would let him know about the Presbyterian values that were so important to those who left here and went across the pond. Maybe he would learn something. That invitation is open to the Member for West Belfast.

Mr Gaston: Towns and villages across Northern Ireland have long and proud historical links with the United States. Many will mark the semiquincentennial signing of the Declaration of Independence this July. Minister, will you outline to the House what your Department is doing to recognise and strengthen those connections and, in particular, to support the development of a trail between communities in North Antrim, such as Dervock and Cullybackey, and those in other parts of Northern Ireland, such as Coagh in Mid Ulster and Carrickfergus in East Antrim? Will you outline what plans you have to create a lasting trail between those towns and villages?

Mr Lyons: It is really important that we create a lasting legacy from this work. I want to get a benefit from it not just this year but in the years ahead. That is why I have had conversations with our tourism promotion agencies and others to see what we can do in the longer term.

The Member mentioned Dervock and Cullybackey. William McKinley's ancestors are from Dervock; Chester A Arthur's ancestors are from Cullybackey; and the place where Andrew Jackson's father and brother were born is in Carrickfergus in my constituency. We all have different views on the presidencies of those who have served in the Oval Office, but the connections that exist are a draw and should be highlighted. I am more than happy to engage further with the Member on the matter. I am very keen to see what we can do to make sure that we get a lasting legacy. One of the biggest opportunities for that is in tourism.

Ms Sheerin: Many people who fled from this island to America played a significant role in the American struggle for independence from British rule at the time and, in turn, influenced the foundation of modern Irish republicanism, as personified by Theobald Wolfe Tone. Is America250 telling the story of how the American War of Independence inspired the 1798 rebellion, and of the role that Ulster Presbyterians played in that rebellion against British rule here in Ireland?

Mr Lyons: We look forward to telling all those stories. It will be up to the organisations that have applied for funding to tell those stories as well. It is funny that a few people have pointed out an apparent irony that, I, as a unionist, am promoting the work of those who contributed to the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Let me be clear: I am deeply proud of those who left here and contributed to the founding of a country. There is a significant difference between Northern Ireland in the 21st century and the American colonies of the 18th century. We are not an overseas possession. Although the Member will not like to hear this —

Ms Sheerin: We were all colonies at that time. We were all colonised.

Mr Lyons: Northern Ireland —.

Ms Sheerin: The USA was a colony of the Brits at that time.

Mr Lyons: She has been very loud in the Chamber over the past few days, but it is OK. Let me take this opportunity to explain. We are not a colony; we are part of the United Kingdom.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Ms Sheerin: The USA was colonised at that time. We all were.

Mr Lyons: We have —.

Ms Sheerin: Do you need us to explain it to you?

Mr Lyons: No. Please be assured that if I need any history explained to me, Emma Sheerin is absolutely the last person whom I would go to for an explanation. Does she want to know the difference? We are a part of the United Kingdom. We have elected representatives whom we send to Parliament. Our constitutional position is protected by the principle of consent, and we are a voluntary political union of nations, which is very different from that which existed in the 18th century in America. In fact, many of the grievances that those in the United States had at that time are grievances that we would all share now. There were grievances that have been sorted out by legislation and by custom and practice. If the Member were to read the Declaration of Independence, she would recognise that some of the concerns that were expressed were about the King not granting Royal Assent to documents. That does not happen any more. There were multiple Representation of the People Acts, which, again, went some way towards dealing with some of the issues that existed at that time. If it gives her some comfort, that is fine, go ahead, but Northern Ireland, despite the efforts of Mr Sheehan and others, is part of the United Kingdom.

Mr Carroll: Remembering the defeat and the end of empires is an important thing historically but also in a contemporary sense. As others have said, however, accuracy is key, including telling the story of the genocide against Native Americans, the transatlantic slave trade and the role of people from here who were connected to that. Minister, you may or may not be aware that the Organization of American Historians has been very critical of Trump's America250 programme. Do you have any comment to make on that, and can you detail which historians, who work on the US but are based in the North, you have been in communication with about organising America250 events here? It is important to remember the anniversary, but it must be historically accurate and cannot simply be based on Trump's wishes.

Mr Lyons: The America250 commission is an independent bipartisan commission that is not under President Trump's direction or control, and neither are we under the direction or control of the America250 commission. It is up to us to put on our own programmes, because we are here to highlight the connections that exist between Ulster and what is now Northern Ireland and the United States, and we make no apology for doing that.

Ms Finnegan: Minister, you and the Taoiseach recently referenced the number of US presidents of Irish ancestry, which is something that we are all very happy to promote. What North/South engagement with the rest of the island, including the other three counties of Ulster, is being supported by America250 to explore their historical contribution to America?

Mr Lyons: I discussed that matter when I was in Savannah, Georgia with Patrick O'Donovan, my counterpart in the Irish Government. We should absolutely take advantage of those opportunities to work together, if it helps us to tell that story. That is certainly what we will be doing through our tourism promotion agencies. I am delighted that Tourism Ireland was at the event that I hosted on Capitol Hill and is promoting America250 because it recognises the value of the initiative and sees it as a way of attracting people to the island of Ireland, but to Northern Ireland in particular. That is something that I welcome.

I noted that, in his remarks, the Taoiseach mentioned John Dunlap and Charles Thomson, who were from County Londonderry and County Tyrone and were very much Ulster people. I will continue to promote that.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, I agree with you that those links are good for tourism. They have been great for your tourism, because you have had literally thousands of pounds worth of free holidays on this subject. Minister, I have said consistently to you in the Chamber that I support celebrating the role of Ulster-Scots and Scots-Irish people in America. However, you have undermined that case today by coming here to troll and invite a reaction. You did that deliberately, and that is clear from your reactions and those of your colleagues.

I will ask you a specific question. Since you lauded the access that you had in Washington, did you or any of your colleagues raise with President Donald Trump the consequences for your constituents and the people whom you serve as Communities Minister — the vulnerable, the elderly and people in fuel poverty — as a result of the impact of the war that he has started in Iran? Did you use your access to raise that vital subject?

Mr Lyons: Here we go again. He cannot get over Donald Trump. He is obsessed with mentioning this issue. As I have said — [Interruption.]

As I have said time and again, this is not about any one president. Rather, it is about building relationships, regardless of who is in the White House. When I was the Economy Minister, I engaged with the Biden Administration, and I have done the same with the Trump Administration. As I have set out, my goal was clear: to highlight the connections that exist between this place and the United States, and that is what I did.

Of course we mentioned the war in Iran when I was engaging with others in the US Administration and in Congress. It was a topic of conversation. Ultimately, however, I will do what I am in control of, which is promoting Northern Ireland.

Mr Buckley: The Minister's recent trip to the United States stands in stark contrast to that of the Sinn Féin Economy Minister last year, which resulted in 300 highly paid jobs being lost. I therefore congratulate the Minister on a successful engagement with the US Administration, and the 250 commission in particular. I argue that this Minister has done more than any since 1998 to promote the story and contribution of the Ulster-Scots people, of which we all in the House can be rightly proud. In light of that engagement around 250, there will be a real point of legacy and education. Will the Minister look at ways in which we can promote the legacy of the Ulster-Scots people through an education piece and perhaps through shared interest between the United States and Northern Ireland?

Mr Lyons: Yes, absolutely. I am proud to have been the Minister who has done so much to promote the contribution of the Scots Irish and the Ulster Scots. That story was not well known, but, at the event that I hosted on Capitol Hill, we had numerous senators, congressmen and congresswomen who were talking about it. That promotes interest in Northern Ireland, which can only be a good thing, and I welcome it. However, if it is to have a real legacy, it cannot just be about one year. We need to keep telling the story and making the contribution. I have therefore engaged with the America250 commission about legacy projects to see how we can ensure that the close connections that have been developed can continue. That will look at the possibility of more cultural exchanges, through which we can support our young people to go over there to learn and then come back, and other links that can be explored. It is important that we get real benefit out of this. I see it primarily as getting an advantage in heritage tourism, such as the work that we are doing through the Public Record Office, but there are many other things that we can do to keep those connections, and that can only be good for Northern Ireland through jobs and investment as well.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister for his statement. There were, of course, eight signatories from the island of Ireland to the US Declaration of Independence. Given the all-island dimension of the US's break from the shackles of the British Empire, has the Minister thought about President Trump's advice and considered a merger?

Mr Lyons: I thought that it was funny when President Trump cracked that joke, but not as funny as the reaction to it. It has perhaps been a comfort blanket for some on the other side of the House. The Member asked me whether I had considered a merger. I do not know whether he means a merger between the UK and the Republic of Ireland — we could certainly consider that — but, if he is talking about a merger between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, I can assure him that I have no intention whatsoever of exploring that one further.

Mr Brett: Minister, 250 years ago, Ulstermen and Ulsterwomen left these shores to write their history in the United States of America. On Thursday, our modern-day Ulstermen will have the opportunity to write their names in the history books as we take another step towards qualifying for the World Cup in the United States of America this summer. As Minister for sport, will you join me in wishing our national football team in Northern Ireland all the best on Thursday in Italy?

Mr Lyons: In the 18th century, people from Ulster had great success in the United States. I believe that that could be the case again in America this summer. Unfortunately, they will have to go via Italy first this time, but I join the Member in wishing our football team well. However, let me say this: in his question, there is an opportunity for us to consider how there can be sporting connections between the United States and Northern Ireland as well. On Saturday evening in Belfast, I spoke to 130 US investors who have contributed to Carrick Rangers football team. We want to see more of that. It is about showing the opportunity that exists to invest not just in tourism and jobs but in sport. As Communities Minister, I will continue to do that.

Ms D Armstrong: Minister, thank you for your statement. It was good to see unionism representing Northern Ireland so positively and, indeed, to see the Ulster Unionist Party leader also having positive engagement in Washington. Minister, was the international Appalachian trail included in your conversations about tourism?

Mr Lyons: Absolutely. The tourism offering in Northern Ireland was talked about frequently, particularly the links that exist between the United States and Northern Ireland. There was a high level of interest in that, and there is a huge opportunity during this 250th year. Numerous people were asking about what we have on offer and what people can come and see. This work has sparked a bit of interest, so we are going to capitalise on that. I encourage the Member to get in contact with Tourism Ireland. In fact, I encourage all Members to get in contact with Tourism Ireland. I am delighted that it recognises the importance of that, but we should continue to make the case for that sort of tourism that is based on our ancestry. I encourage people to go to the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland as well.

Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister on his statement.

Before I hand over to Deputy Speaker Blair, I welcome Trevor Lunn and Kieran McCarthy, both former Members of the House.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Speaker: I have got to know Mr McCarthy's grandson through the Northern Ireland Youth Assembly, so there might be a McCarthy back here in the future.

Ms K Armstrong: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order under Standing Order 65, which deals with good order in this place. I have not hidden the fact that I have a hearing impairment, and, today, I was not able to hear most of what the Minister was saying because of the shouting coming from the Back Benches. Between Mr Gaston, Mr Brett and others, including Mr McNulty, it made it impossible. If that type of discrimination is going to continue in the Chamber, it prevents people with hearing impairments from taking part in the democratic process. I would like a ruling from you about the noise that is created in the Chamber that stops Members hearing a Minister. Whether I agree with him or not, he deserves to have his place and be heard in this place.

Mr Speaker: The point of order is noted. Thank you.

Members, take your ease.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, before I start, I do not think that I can let this moment pass without adding my welcome to Kieran McCarthy and Trevor Lunn. They are in the Gallery, and I am sure that Members will understand my doing that.

Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate. I call the Minister for the Economy to open the debate.

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

Today marks an important moment. By bringing the Bill to its Final Stage, the Assembly and my Department demonstrate our shared commitment to keeping our insolvency framework modern, responsible and fully equipped to meet the evolving needs of our economy.

Over the years, the Assembly has always acted with purpose in this important area that supports our local citizens and economy. In 2010, Members supported the creation of our debt relief scheme, an invaluable route for people facing burdensome debt. It removed the need for costly court proceedings for those with lower levels of debt. Latterly, and in recognising the cost-of-living pressures faced by many, we have abolished the application fee for that scheme altogether. It is now entirely free for those who qualify, relieving the stress of problem debt and allowing a fresh start. In 2016, the Assembly enacted a further major reform by reshaping the authorisation and regulation of insolvency practitioners, strengthening the standards, oversight and professionalism of those working in that critical field. The Bill takes a different approach. It does not create new schemes or make significant changes that require additional expenditure; instead, it fine-tunes and updates existing law so that insolvency procedures, whether for individuals, companies or partnerships, can be carried out more efficiently and effectively, with better outcomes for creditors.

While insolvency levels remain modest here relative to the size of our economy, the consequences of insolvency always ripple far beyond the business or individual involved, affecting employees, customers, suppliers and the wider economic landscape. That is why a modern, streamlined system is so important. The Bill introduces around 30 targeted improvements. Each may appear modest in isolation, but, together, they deliver meaningful modernisation.

I will not elaborate on every modification, but I will address several of the key provisions. For example, for companies in administration, the Bill helps to ensure that the process genuinely supports rescue, where possible. It prevents the misuse of winding-up petitions to block the appointment of administrators and allows creditors to extend an administrator's term more easily to enhance the potential for rescue. Administrators will gain powers to pursue directors who are guilty of fraudulent or wrongful trading to provide compensation to those who have suffered financial loss. Crucially, the Bill takes a new route for those actions to be taken forward with the support of specialist firms. That will remove the financial risks that often deter administrators or creditors. That means that misconduct can be tackled more consistently, sending a clear message that wrongdoing will have consequences.

We are modernising processes, too. Creditors will no longer need to attend physical meetings unless they choose to. Remote participation will be the norm. Insolvency practitioners will be freed from outdated formalities that add costs but no value, with the savings redirected to creditors. Small creditors owed less than £1,000 will be paid more swiftly, without having to complete complex claims. The Bill provides extra protections for struggling businesses, guaranteeing access to essential supplies, including IT services, to improve their chances of recovery. My Department's insolvency service will have direct access to all the information that it needs for investigating director misconduct efficiently and comprehensively, eliminating the need to rely on third parties.

Throughout the development of the Bill, engagement with insolvency practitioners and stakeholders has been positive and constructive. They are eager to see these reforms in place, and rightly so. The changes will make our system quicker, clearer and fairer for everyone involved. The Assembly has a strong record of thoughtful and effective action on insolvency. Today, we have the opportunity to build on that record.

I commend the Insolvency (Amendment) Bill to the House.

Mr Brett (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Economy): I support the passage of the Bill. As the House is aware, insolvency arrangements are a necessary and important part of business. Clear and understandable procedures are essential to give business owners, investors and creditors confidence. That provides a stable environment where the economy can grow, and a level of certainty for the sector. In that context, the Committee welcomes the Insolvency (Amendment) Bill, which is designed to bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom. The Committee noted that the provisions of the Bill include the greater use of virtual creditor meetings, and are designed to reduce costs and streamline processes already in place in England and Wales.

Committee members welcomed departmental assurances that robust rules relating to virtual meetings would be developed, and a review undertaken into their effectiveness in respect of the inclusion of those who lack digital assets or may be inexperienced in using online tools.

On behalf of the Committee, I thank the Department for responding in such a timely manner to a number of Committee queries. I also thank the Minister for proposing an amendment to the regulation-making powers at the Committee's request.

On behalf of the Committee, I commend the Bill to the House and encourage Members to support its final passage today.

Mr O'Toole: I will briefly commend the passage of the Bill on behalf of the Opposition. It brings forward a series of technical amendments, which, as the Committee Chair said, are largely designed to bring Northern Ireland into line with other parts of the UK. There are some local specifics in the Bill, which have been debated at length in plenary sessions and in the Committee.

Fundamentally, the Bill is about making insolvency processes more efficient, more accessible and more responsive to the needs of those affected, be they creditors, directors of companies, insolvency practitioners or members of the public. As has been said, one of the most practical reforms that the Bill makes is to shift away from the default use of physical meetings towards a greater use of remote meetings. The Bill allows creditors and shareholders to participate through virtual meetings or correspondence, which is obviously a sensible way in which to do business in the 21st century. One hopes that it will have other positive ancillary benefits. For small businesses and individual creditors, that is a particularly welcome change, because their diaries are often burdened as a result of running a small business and managing other issues.

The Bill also streamlines a range of processes for insolvency practitioners, allowing them to take certain actions, such as recovering assets, without the need to get repeated permission from courts or Departments to do so. We are also pleased to see that the Bill strengthens accountability for company directors. In its totality, it is a practical and sensible Bill, albeit it is legislation that is largely rolling over reforms that have already been introduced in Britain. We are pleased to see the Bill get its Final Stage today.

Mr Delargy: I welcome the Final Stage of the Insolvency (Amendment) Bill. The legislation is about elements that are fundamental to any functioning economy: confidence, fairness and resilience. The Minister for the Economy introduced the Bill in June 2025, and it has progressed through its scrutiny stages. That demonstrates proactive legislative leadership. The Minister's approach has clearly been informed by consultation and engagement with stakeholders across the insolvency and legal sectors.

The Bill is a practical and necessary step towards modernising our insolvency framework. It ensures that businesses, creditors and workers here are not left behind and that there will now exist a system that reflects the realities of today's economy. At its core, the legislation recognises that, when businesses face difficulty, the system around them must be clear, efficient and fair. That means giving viable businesses the chance to recover. Streamlined procedures reduce costs, delay and complexity, and that is particularly important for our small to medium-sized enterprise sector, as SMEs make up such a large proportion of our local businesses.

The Bill is part of a wider programme of work on which the Minister is leading. She is engaging with stakeholders, consulting on reform and taking decisive action to strengthen our economic foundations. The Bill reflects the wider economic priorities of supporting enterprise, protecting jobs and building resilience. At a time when businesses continue to face pressure, having a modern and effective insolvency framework is essential. It allows us not just to respond to difficulty but to build resilience for the future and to withstand shocks through having an increasingly responsive economy. I support the Bill and commend the Minister for introducing it.

Ms D Armstrong: I also welcome the Final Stage of the Insolvency Bill. The legislation represents a practical and necessary step towards strengthening our insolvency framework. Although much of the Bill is technical in nature, its importance should not be underestimated. By removing unnecessary bureaucracy and addressing inconsistencies, it ensures that our legal processes operate more smoothly and effectively. Aligning our framework with that of Great Britain is a sensible and pragmatic approach to take, as doing that promotes consistency and clarity while helping ensure that businesses in Northern Ireland are not placed at a disadvantage through unnecessary regulatory divergence. If we are serious about supporting enterprise and attracting investment, our legal framework must be coherent, predictable and competitive. As legislators, our role is not only to regulate but to enable. Our laws should support economic activity, not hinder it.

Following a period in which the Assembly was not functioning, it is particularly important that we take such opportunities to modernise and update our statute book. The Bill is a good example of the kind of focused, technical reform that is required to ensure that our systems remain fit for purpose.

We must also remember that insolvency is not a notional concept. It affects real people and businesses. Behind every case are employees, creditors, directors and families facing uncertainty. In those circumstances, having clarity and efficiency in the process is essential. The Bill does not seek to introduce sweeping change. Rather, it seeks to improve how the system operates in practice by making it more straightforward and more effective in what it is designed to do.

I also welcome the scrutiny that the legislation has received. Careful examination strengthens legislation and ensures better outcomes. Not every Bill needs to be ambitious in scope to be valuable; often, technical and procedural reforms such as these deliver the most meaningful improvements. This measured and common-sense Bill enhances clarity, supports business and improves the functioning of our legal system. I am pleased to support it.

Ms Nicholl: I do not have much to add, because Members have made most of the points. I confirm the Alliance Party's support for the Bill at Final Stage. It is a technical Bill, and I enjoyed being a member of the Committee and scrutinising it. It felt like the real job of an MLA, and I look forward to doing more of that. The Bill will modernise insolvency practices. It is so important that our businesses are not disadvantaged by divergence, so it is wonderful that it has come through. I put on record our thanks to the Minister and her officials for their work on it.

Dr Archibald: I am grateful to all the Members who have contributed to the debate. I do not have a huge amount to add, but I thank the Committee Chair and the Committee for their thoughtful and considered scrutiny of the Bill. I also thank the officials who have worked on the Bill, doing so diligently and responsively with the Committee to ensure that the Bill, which is complex and technical, passed its stages smoothly. I commend the Insolvency (Amendment) Bill to the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I ask Members to take their ease for a moment.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call the Minister for Communities, Mr Gordon Lyons, to move the Consideration Stage of the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the order of consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in the provisional grouping of amendments selected list. There are two groups of amendments, and we will debate the amendments in each group in turn.

The first debate will be on amendment Nos 1 to 5 and amendment No 22, which deal with the provision of sign language classes and the definition of "deaf community". The second debate will be on amendment Nos 6 to 21, which deal with consultation, the conferral of functions on other bodies or persons, the Department's reporting duties and Assembly control of regulations.

I remind Members who intend to speak that, during the debates on the two groups of amendments, they should address all the amendments in each group on which they wish to comment. Once the debate on each group is completed, any further amendments in the group will be moved formally as we go through the Bill, and the Question on each amendment will be put without further debate. The Questions on stand part will be taken at the appropriate points in the Bill. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): We now come to the first group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 1, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 2 to 5 and amendment No 22. Members may wish to note that amendment No 2 is a paving amendment for amendment No 3 and that amendment No 5 is consequential to amendment No 4.

I call the Minister for Communities to move amendment No 1 and to address the other amendments in the group.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): I beg to move amendment No 1:

Mr Lyons: The amendments that I have tabled to clause 2 do not alter the intention of the Bill; rather, they refine and strengthen it. Clause 2 places a statutory duty on my Department to actively promote British Sign Language (BSL), Irish Sign Language (ISL) and deaf culture across Northern Ireland. That includes ensuring access to sign language classes for deaf children and young people and their families or carers. The clause transforms recognition of the languages into practical action, ensures increased visibility, awareness and understanding of BSL and ISL not just in public life but in wider society, working in partnership with the deaf community. That is where meaningful change begins. A priority of the Bill is ensuring early access to sign language, which is vital for communication development, educational progress and family relationships. Making early access a departmental responsibility will remove barriers and ensure consistent and equitable support for families.

The amendments were tabled following constructive engagement with the Committee and deaf organisations that deliver classes, and through legal refinement by the Office of the Legislative Council (OLC). The amendments guarantee that classes will be free of charge, now and for future generations. The age threshold will rise to include young persons of up to 25 years of age, reflecting developmental, educational and transitional needs.

The Queen's University Belfast report on free sign language classes for deaf children and families, which was commissioned by my Department, demonstrates that early exposure to sign language improves communication, social development, educational attainment and emotional well-being. Families learning together and being able to do so without financial barriers creates the strongest foundation for children's confidence and development. Free access would prevent inequality by ensuring that support does not depend on a family's ability to pay.

Economic analysis by the British Deaf Association (BDA) found that early acquisition of sign language is an investment in children and young people, and, for the public purse, every £1 invested in early British Sign Language provision yields up to £14 in lifetime benefits, boosting education, employment and health outcomes for deaf children in society. That demonstrates that early years sign language support produces long-term personal, social and economic gains. That is the case for British Sign Language, as well as for Irish Sign Language.

Amendment No 2 is consequential to amendment No 3. Following the Committee's request that my Department consider amending the age threshold for family classes from including those under 19 years of age to including those of up to 25 years of age, my officials engaged with the National Deaf Children's Society (NDCS), which strongly supports raising the age threshold to include those under the age of 25, noting that language and communication development for deaf young people continues into their early 20s.

Families remain central to communication support, even as young people transition towards independence. The period from 19 years of age to 25 years of age includes major transitions such as the move to further and higher education or training and employment, all of which create new communication pressures. Many statutory frameworks already recognise extended needs beyond the age of 18, including the Commissioner for Children and Young People (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 and support for education and training up to the age of 24 under the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. In England, the Children and Families Act 2014 provides special educational needs and disability support up to the age of 25. The NDCS therefore regards raising the age threshold as being consistent, fair and aligned with modern developmental pathways, and its services extend to those aged 25 for precisely those reasons.

The amendments ensure that families will never face financial barriers when seeking essential sign language support. Deaf children and young people up to the age of 25 can access classes that directly support communication development, educational participation and healthier family relationships. The provision aligns with best practice across comparable children's services.

The Bill delivers practical, meaningful support to those who rely on early and ongoing access to signed communication. For those reasons, I tabled an amendment to clause 2 that inserts "free of charge" into the duty to provide sign language classes and an amendment that replaces references to "deaf children under 19" with "young persons who are deaf under 25 years of age". Those changes strengthen the Bill, reflecting evidence from Queen's University Belfast, deaf organisations, Action Deaf Youth, the British Deaf Association and the National Deaf Children's Society. They ensure that families and young people receive the support that they need during the most critical developmental years, and they ensure that the Bill keeps pace with the real needs of deaf children and young people and their families.

I come now to amendment No 4, which will be moved by Kellie Armstrong. Clause 2 places a statutory duty on my Department to actively promote BSL, ISL and deaf culture across Northern Ireland. As I have made clear, a key element of that is ensuring access to sign language classes for deaf children and young people and their families and carers, especially during those crucial developmental years. I have therefore sought to embed that principle in primary legislation and have secured Executive approval for that provision in the Bill that I introduced in February 2025.

I do not oppose support for adults who become deaf: on the contrary, as I will explain. However, the Bill is about sign language promotion, not broader disability policy. The issue of providing classes for those aged 25 and above who become deaf was raised during Committee scrutiny. My officials advised the Committee that primary legislation was not required to offer the classes. My Department already provides accredited BSL and ISL qualifications across Northern Ireland; taster sessions across schools and the voluntary and community sector; and classes for children of deaf adults. It does all of that without primary legislation.

My officials' engagement with deaf sector organisations and Health and Social Care (HSC) sensory support indicates very low demand for classes for deafened adults. My officials were advised that many adults who become deaf already rely on a first language and do not wish to adopt a new language. There is, therefore, demand for modern assistive technologies — hearing aids, implants, captioning, speech to text — to meet many communication needs. Practical adjustments such as lip-reading or clear speech are often preferred to learning a full new language. Many deafened adults do not identify with the signing community. However, where there is a wish by some deafened adults to explore sign language, they may attend classes in further education colleges.

Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for giving way and for his indulgence on the issue. I am interested in the topic, and I have been liaising with my party colleague Andy Allen on it. We very much welcome the Bill and the changes that will be adopted. However, it occurs to me that the Bill's success will change how we communicate across the piece in Northern Ireland and that, for people who develop deafness, it may be better if that provision is in the Bill, because, in 20 years or 25 years, the whole tapestry will change drastically. It may be beneficial to put that in the Bill at this stage so that we future-proof it against the anticipated changes.

Mr Lyons: I do not necessarily believe that those changes will come about, because those who find themselves in the situation of becoming deaf later in life already have English or another language as their first language. As I have just said, the demand is low. Where demand exists, it is for modern assistive technologies. I recognise that the Member is shaking her head, but that is the evidence that we have. That is what we have been told. I know that she has a different viewpoint on that, and I know that her experience is one that she will speak to, but this is coming from direct engagement with deaf sector organisations. It is coming directly from Health and Social Care sensory support, which has told us that there is very low demand and that people want to see investment in hearing aids, implants, captioning and speech to text. We often talk in this place about the importance of co-design and listening to the experts. That is what I am following in this instance.

I am happy to give way to Mr Donnelly, if he wants to come in.

Mr Donnelly: Thank you. I am a bit shocked. When we were talking about minimum unit pricing, there was a disregard of the evidence, so I am shocked to hear what the Minister has just said.

Mr Lyons: We are digressing, but I assure the Member that that is an issue that I have looked at. I have looked at the evidence, and I suggest that it is not as clear-cut as the Member thinks it is. Regardless, on this, I am going on what the experts have told us about what we have in front of us. The Member has a different view, and she will be able to explain that.

There is a difference between deafness acquired late in life and deafness that has been there since childhood; and, secondly, it is what people want. I concede that some people would like sign language classes — that is why provision for those has been made — but I do not believe that we need to put that into primary legislation now. I enter into this genuinely, and I am content to listen to what the Member has to say and the evidence that she brings forward. We will engage in that in a genuine way. It is also worth pointing out that many deafened adults do not identify with the signing community, as I have said, but there will be an opportunity for that to be explored further.

This is a Sign Language Bill that is designed to recognise both sign languages and to improve the lives of the deaf community; it is not intended to replace existing disability legislation. It is based around the culture and languages of the deaf community. However, choice and identity are at its core. My Department takes seriously its duties with regard to promoting BSL, ISL and deaf culture as widely as possible across society. Therefore, as a result of the discussions with the deaf sector and the Department of Health, my Department will fund a limited pilot programme of BSL and ISL classes for deafened adults and their families to assess the demand for such classes and to explore curriculum need. The lessons learned from the pilot will be shared with deaf organisations and Department of Health officials to consider the merits of access to such classes alongside the existing supports as outlined. Subject to further discussions with delivery partners, it is anticipated that those classes will launch in the coming weeks.

I refer to the reference within the amendment that:

For context, although there is a reference to fees in clause 10 — fees that my Department has no intention of collecting presently — I have agreed to the Communities Committee's request to amend clause 10 from negative resolution to affirmative resolution, given the potential for the collection of fees. The negative procedure stipulated in amendment No 4 to directly impose new fees would be inappropriate for the same reasons, and it should be considered only under the affirmative process.

For the reasons that I have outlined, I do not believe that such classes require provision in primary legislation. Furthermore, the suggested statutory procedure for imposing fees is inappropriate.

I move now to clause 4 and the further amendment from Kellie Armstrong. As the Bill stands, it is unnecessary, as the "Chapter" referenced in clause 4(5) is chapter 1, which the clause is in. However, it can be seen as consequential if the Member's amendment is successful. I have outlined my opposition to the Member's amendment at clause 2, and I have outlined my view that, if that amendment is carried, for the purposes of consistency, affirmative resolution is the appropriate route. I also refer to my agreement to the Committee's request to amend clause 4(5) to replace regulations by negative resolution with affirmative resolution. The Member is, of course, part of that Committee, and she made it clear that she is not in favour of the use of negative resolution.

That brings us on to amendment No 6. Clause 4 provides the Department with the statutory powers to list in regulations the public bodies that will be required to take the reasonable steps outlined in clause 3. The amendment is technical in nature and clarifies how the Department must, by regulations, list public bodies as prescribed organisations for the purposes of the Bill. The Committee had requested that, rather than listing public bodies as prescribed organisations by negative resolution, the Department should use affirmative resolution. My officials were of the view that that is an administrative duty and that negative resolution would provide a proportionate level of scrutiny for such an administrative exercise and would also expedite the listing of public bodies to ensure that they are subject to the duties of this —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, I do not want to interrupt you deliberately, but we are addressing amendment Nos 1 to 5 and amendment No 22. I think that you referred to amendment No 6.

Mr Lyons: Is it just amendment Nos 1 to 5?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): And No 22.

Mr Lyons: In that case, I will move on to amendment No 22. I apologise to the House for that. I thought that amendment No 6 was in group 1, but, if that is not the case, I will move on and make a few brief comments about amendment No 22.

Membership of the deaf community needs to be factual in order to work everywhere else referred to in the Bill. Key rights to access services and information correctly turn on the actual use of or reliance on sign language. Therefore, this is not about a hypothesis, an abstract or a potential benefit from using sign language but, rather, is about guaranteeing access to services for deaf or deafblind people who normally rely on BSL or ISL in the present. Deaf or deafblind sign language learners now — for example, deaf children — may well become users who rely on sign language in the future and would automatically have rights under the Bill at that point. The amendment would undermine the intention and purpose of the Bill, as it would place sign language users who rely on BSL or ISL and those who could hypothetically benefit from sign language in the future on an equal footing under defined membership of the deaf community. That is not the intent of the Bill. If I were to learn sign language, I could get a future benefit from that. However, I should not be in the same category as those who rely on it. That is the distinction, and that is the policy intent of the Bill. I am happy to give way to the Member, if she wants to comment on that, but that is the case.

That brings me to the end of group 1.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, thank you.

Members, the Business Committee has agreed to meet at 1.00 pm today. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The debate will continue following Question Time, when the first Member to be called will be the Chair of the Committee for Communities, Colm Gildernew.

Mr Speaker: Question 1 has been withdrawn.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): I recognise the vital work that community pharmacy teams do each day to ensure the safe supply of medicines to patients. That is reflected in the considerable investment that my Department has made over recent years, the aim of which has been to strengthen the role of the sector in primary care, including making yearly increases to recurrent funding, annual pay uplifts and exceptional investments, such as for National Insurance increases. Government funding for community pharmacy Health and Social Care (HSC) service provision has increased by almost £60 million, or 57%, since April 2018. That is the highest level of funding to date and is commensurate with funding in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Community pharmacies access medicines via a range of commercial arrangements, with different pharmaceutical wholesalers operating within a UK-wide supply chain for medicines. Those commercial arrangements are agreed between the wholesaler and the community pharmacy business and operate in a competitive market. Wholesalers compete on price, service levels, delivery speed and credit terms. Departmental officials engage with wholesalers to ensure that the continuity of supply of medicines to patients and members of the public is not affected. Notable examples include work that is related to EU exit, the COVID pandemic and times of medicine shortages.

Wholesalers have advised of pressures in the community pharmacy sector across the UK, including here. Claims that 90% of pharmacy customers of one wholesaler did not pay their bill in January are concerning for the company involved. My officials will continue to engage with wholesalers to ensure that the continuity of supply of medicines to patients and members of the public is assured.

Mr Martin: I thank the Minister for his answer and declare an interest, as my wife is a pharmacist. Can the Minister state the extent of the concerns that medicine wholesalers have expressed to his Department about the ability of community pharmacies to pay their wholesaler bills?

Mr Nesbitt: I am a daily user of medication, so I can say anecdotally, from speaking to my own community pharmacist, that I have been made aware that pharmacists are feeling particular pressures from price points at the moment. It is fair to say that we have regular negotiations and conversations with Community Pharmacy NI but have yet to find a joint landing space when it comes to what we think is the right thing to do about investing in community pharmacy and what it thinks we need to do for it. I am not happy that we are not in the same place. I therefore want those discussions to continue until we are in agreement.

Mr McGuigan: On Saturday night, I was at the North's Pharmacy in Focus Awards 2026, at which the really good work that our community pharmacists do to provide healthcare and improve patient outcomes for members of our community was extolled. Notwithstanding that engagement and my Committee engagement, I am aware of real pressures in the community pharmacy sector. There is the issue of medicine supply, but clawback and core funding are key concerns for the industry. Will the Minister commit to engaging directly with community pharmacists to try to resolve some of the outstanding issues?

Mr Nesbitt: I can certainly make that commitment, because I have met Community Pharmacy Northern Ireland directly on a number of occasions. I believe that I have a relationship with Gerard Greene. I am interested in the clawback that the Chair of the Health Committee mentioned. My Department has worked with the Scottish Government to gain a greater understanding of their funding arrangements. That engagement has identified that recurrent core funding levels in Northern Ireland and Scotland are broadly comparable.

Scotland's suspension of generic discount clawback has been feasible only because of legacy differences between Scotland and England's drug tariff prices, which are now beginning to align. There is a request from Community Pharmacy Northern Ireland to adjust or remove long-standing discount clawback arrangements to allow in excess of £20 million to be retained by community pharmacies but with no additional service provision or benefits for patients or the HSC. I am afraid that that is a bridge too far.

Mr Donnelly: We have heard time and time again from community pharmacists who are struggling to pay their bills and are sometimes juggling different accounts. Northern Ireland pharmacies are particularly exposed, because, traditionally, we have had fewer wholesalers. One wholesaler has already left Northern Ireland. Those pharmacists tell us that they are also particularly exposed because of the clawback, which means that they lose £20 million a year that could go back into the health service. Will you consider removing the clawback so that we can sustain that important industry?

Mr Nesbitt: I quoted the figure of £20 million to Mr McGuigan. Removing clawback arrangements would allow in excess of £20 million to be retained by community pharmacies. The actual annual margin achieved by community pharmacies in Northern Ireland has significantly exceeded the guaranteed level, and, when that is coupled with the fact that any excess in margins is not recouped by us, we cannot consider the removal of discount clawback at this time, I am afraid.

Mr McGrath: Community pharmacy provides a service that your Department has to provide, but it cannot do so with the funding that you are giving it. It is going to collapse. The Minister suggests that the £20 million clawback needs to be connected to new services. It was put to me recently that that is like giving nurses a pay rise but asking them to work a Saturday and a Sunday; it does not make sense. Will the Minister undertake to sit down with representatives of the community pharmacy sector and hear exactly what the situation is in the community? I am not even entirely sure about some of the figures that he has quoted today, because the Committee was told that it had been given misinformation that had to be corrected. I do not know whether the Minister's pack has been corrected for Question Time.

Mr Nesbitt: I assure the Member that I have sat down and listened to the community pharmacy people about their concerns. I have been told that provision has increased by almost £60 million since April 2018. We are coming towards the end of this financial year. We started with a £600 million shortfall in the Department. I said that that was unprecedented and unmanageable, and I was correct on that, because it is only through the Treasury reserve claim of up to £200 million, which we will have to pay back, that we hope to balance the books. Effectively, we are finishing £200 million light. Going into next year, our starting position is at least £800 million short. I would love to do more for community pharmacy. Community pharmacy and GPs are central to the shift-left agenda, and I want them to get more. I want everybody, when they wake up in the morning, to feel content and to look forward to delivering HSC services, but that is not where we are.

Mr Nesbitt: The Northern Ireland Ambulance Service (NIAS) continues to engage constructively with recognised staff-side representatives regarding the current industrial action and associated action short of strike (ASOS). Since November 2023, three of the four recognised trade unions in NIAS have been undertaking ASOS. The issues that have been raised relate primarily to safe staffing levels, staff welfare and the impact of prolonged hospital handover delays, which contribute to late finishes and reduced opportunities for rest.

NIAS has established regular partnership forums with trade union representatives to review those issues, monitor operational data and identify actions to reduce the impact on staff. Progress has been achieved across a number of areas, with further improvements expected through ongoing hospital handover reform. That includes the Release to Rescue protocol, which is scheduled to go live next month. It will allow ambulance crews to safely return to the community when extended hospital handover delays occur, helping to restore lost capacity at emergency departments (EDs).

NIAS continues to engage constructively with trade union representatives on the issues underpinning the action short of strike, including staffing, staff welfare and the operational impact of hospital handover delays. I am scheduled to meet trade union representatives and the Ambulance Service leadership later this week to discuss those matters further.

Mr Gaston: The late Willy Darragh passed away at the side of the road on 21 December 2024 after suffering a heart attack. The initial 999 call from his wife Caroline was classed as a category 2 call, and, due to the action short of strike, it was not passed to the crew in the local Ballymena ambulance station. Minister, will you commit today to meeting the Darragh family and to ensuring that the action short of strike is brought to an end so that no other family is left in the same position as the Darragh family?

Mr Nesbitt: First of all, I extend my sympathies to Mr Darragh's family. That is a very regrettable loss of life. I hope to see improvements in hospital flow that are expected to help restore the capacity of the Ambulance Service. The future operational approach to responding to category 2 calls in the final hour of shift will depend on the outcome of ongoing discussions with trade union representatives, so I can make no promises there. Regardless, category 2 calls will continue to remain fully visible, clinically governed and actively managed at all times, even when immediate deployment is constrained by wider system pressures.

As for meeting Mr Darragh's family, of course I agree to that.

Mrs Dillon: Will the Release to Rescue protocol go live in April, as we were previously told? What impact do you anticipate that will have on resolving the industrial action? I concur with Mr Gaston's comments on the death of Mr Darragh. It is very unfortunate, and I know that no Ambulance Service staff would want to think that they would leave anybody lying on the side of the road, but, unfortunately, we have all had constituents who have been in that exact position. That is not because staff want it to be that way, and we need to be very cognisant of that. How do we improve that? What impact will the Release to Rescue protocol have?

Mr Nesbitt: I agree with the Member. I do not think that there is anybody working in Health and Social Care who does not want to deliver the best for their patients and service users. However, the Member will know that such are the pressures, particularly in emergency departments. Nurses, doctors and ambulance crews are trained to do the best thing for patients, but, because of the pressures and the numbers, too often, they end up trying to decide what is the least worst option. That is not a single decision. Once they have made one least-worst-option decision, there is another one in their face and then another one and another one for the whole of their shift. That is why we get to this sense of moral injury and of staff going home and waking up the next morning not looking forward, as they should, to going on shift because they cannot see any light at the end of the tunnel.

With regard to the Release to Rescue protocol, I have no indication other than that it will go live in April. It puts more pressure on the workforce in the ED because there will have to be a handover so that they can release the crew.

Miss McAllister: Minister, you anticipated part of my question. We have heard from some concerned nurses. The Royal College of Nursing (RCN) also has concerns about the protocol, but we have to do some things differently. What has the engagement been like to ensure that we have buy-in from not only the RCN but emergency departments and clinicians who will run it on the ground? Ultimately, they will look after the patients who are released to the hospitals so that the ambulances can go back into the community.

Mr Nesbitt: As it happens, I was at Windsor Avenue this morning at a conference that was being run by the Royal College of Nursing. The relationship there is good, but I go back to the point that I understand the pressures and the moral injury better than I can provide a proper solution to it, because it requires more funding and more resources.

With regard to the specific Release to Rescue protocol, I am not aware of any significant concerns. Maybe the concerns are significant, but that may be a judgement call.

I sense a willingness on the RCN's part to try to make this work; let me put it that way.

Mr Chambers: I am glad that a further meeting is planned in the coming days. Whilst ambulance capacity continues to be lost due to prolonged hospital handover delays, I very much welcome the significant improvements that have been made in recent months. Is the Minister hopeful that, whilst all-year-round pressures will, no doubt, remain, we are through the worst of the winter pressures and, therefore, securing a sustainable end-of-shift protocol should be more achievable?

Mr Nesbitt: Hopefully, we are through the winter, but the Member will be aware that, very early on, I stopped talking about winter pressures and described them as additional winter pressures, because the pressures are on, 24/7/365. I am confident that we are moving in the right direction. I am not satisfied that we are moving as quickly as I would like, but, in the real world, everybody is focused on trying to do better. I am very grateful to the health and social care staff and workforce, not least in emergency departments, who are trying to push for better.

Mr McCrossan: Minister, in the past year, £10 million has been spent on private ambulance providers. Would that money not be better spent on the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service?

Mr Nesbitt: I recognise the point that the Member is making. If we had a blank map and we were starting from scratch, absolutely, but we are in a position where the pressures are, to some extent, unprecedented. If we do not spend the money on those independent services, people do not get seen in a timely manner, or they are seen in an even less timely manner than they are being seen at the moment. In an ideal world, absolutely. Is it a position that I would like to move to? Absolutely. Would I like to be spending less on the independent sector generally? Absolutely, but we do not have the capacity to do what we need to do within the HSC.

Mr Nesbitt: My Department implemented a new violence and aggression in the workplace HSC framework in December 2023. The framework outlines the HSC's commitment, developed in partnership with staff representatives, to ensure prevention, reduction and management of violence and aggression towards staff in the workplace. Since its launch, all HSC organisations and key stakeholders have been working to embed the framework's principles and support local implementation. I am clear that creating a culture of zero tolerance towards violence and aggression in the workplace is not a one-off action but a sustained commitment. Every member of staff has the right to feel safe and respected at work. We will continue to take all necessary steps to protect and support our workforce.

HSC trusts have a number of measures in place to protect front-line staff, including safety intervention training, which helps to equip staff with the skills to identify potential risks and effectively de-escalate situations. There is also the use of trained security staff, who respond to incidents 24/7; CCTV coverage, which is effectively used to deter and detect criminal and antisocial behaviour; and the use of body-worn cameras. A number of trusts are piloting the use of those cameras, which act as a potential deterrent and allow staff to capture video footage of instances of violence and aggression. I would welcome a change in the law that would strengthen employers' ability to support the progression of incident reports to the PSNI.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister for his answer. There have been 72,000 physical and verbal attacks on health and social care staff in the past five years in the North — sometimes in circumstances where there is no blame, where Alzheimer's or mental crisis patients act unpredictably and violently towards staff — causing physical and emotional harm in the workplace. Earlier, the Minister mentioned moral injury as well. Is enough being done to keep staff safe?

Mr Nesbitt: it would be tempting to say that we can never do enough. However, once again, we are moving in the right direction. I am very much in favour of body-worn cameras, and there is evidence that they are a successful and appropriate deterrent. My focus, Mr McNulty, is on changing the law. At the moment, it prohibits the employers — the trusts — from taking action to prosecute somebody who has been physically or verbally violent towards a member of their staff. We are actively looking at what we might do by way of a legislative change to empower the trusts to do more to ensure prosecutions rather than leave staff feeling that they are on their own and have to get a solicitor to do their own prosecution.

Ms Sheerin: Minister, you referred to the fact that you support the use of body-worn cameras, and I welcome their introduction in Antrim Area Hospital and then in the Ulster Hospital. What plans do you have to roll them out regionally across all trusts?

You referred to the legislative element. The Justice Minister has spoken about including assaults on front-line workers as an aggravator in the Sentencing Bill. What conversations have you had with the Justice Minister to bring that forward, and what impact will that have on this?

Mr Nesbitt: The pilots will run their course. I hope that we will end up with body-worn cameras being available to all HSC staff who work in areas where there is engagement with patients or service users where appropriate. Ultimately, however, it will be for the trusts, as it is an operational matter for them. I would like to see that it is consistent and regional across the five geographic trusts. We should not end up in a position where one trust does one thing and another trust does another. That does not appeal to me.

The Justice Minister and I have sat down face to face. We have discussed the issue and the fact that the employer has no legal vires to step in, protect their staff and operate a prosecution on their behalf. We think that we have a workaround in legislation that, I hope, will be passed by the Assembly before we hit purdah, which, I believe, may kick in one year from tomorrow.

Mr Wilson: Like other Members, I welcome all efforts to protect our front-line healthcare staff from physical harm and harassment. Minister, in the circumstances that have been brought to you, is there evidence of violence being carried out in our healthcare settings of which the basis is substance misuse?

Mr Nesbitt: Yes, there is certainly anecdotal evidence. It seems that, if you visit emergency departments or their environs, you will find people who have taken substances, including illegal substances, that are the motivator for physical and verbal violence towards staff. Well before COVID, I was fascinated to be told that Monday nights were the busiest in emergency departments because some people do not want to give up their weekends, so they thole it until they get to Monday morning. I asked to spend an overnight in the Ulster Hospital, and one thing that happened was that a man came in by ambulance, full of alcohol, and a chair was found for him. At around 2.00 am, the chair was empty. I asked the nurse, "Have you managed to deal with that gentleman?", and she said, "No, he has gone". A couple of hours later, however, he arrived back in a second ambulance. He had gone home for a drink. I repeat: he had gone home to get himself a drink.

I will also say that, yes, I support the use of body-worn cameras, and, yes, it is potentially a good thing, but it is also a sad thing that we have come to the position of needing them.

Mr Nesbitt: Data definitions do not directly measure or describe pressure within Health and Social Care. Rather, they serve to enable the consistent recording and reporting of information across the sector. That consistency supports robust assessments of system pressures using statistical and operational data. The Department makes use of a combination of official statistics and management information, grounded in standardised data definitions, to evaluate pressures in health and social care environments.

That is further supported by statistical quality assurance processes, ongoing collaboration with data producers through the system and regular reviews of both data definitions and sources to ensure continued relevance and accuracy in reflecting operational realities.

Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for that reply. On the subject of data, further to the question, given the BMA's warning that consultant vacancies may be significantly under-reported because only posts under active recruitment are counted, does he accept that decisions may be flawed if the data that he referenced previously understates the scale of need?

Mr Nesbitt: The logic of that is that the answer is yes, but there is a logic to reporting only vacant positions that are under active recruitment because we are so strapped for funding in the Department that that is almost an inevitability. Does it skew the risks and the shortfalls? Off the top of my head, I am saying that, yes, I would like to know exactly what is missing rather than what we are trying to fill.

Mrs Dodds: Minister, we all welcome the reduction in waiting lists, and those are really important, valuable and good steps forward. However, recently at the Health Committee, we had presentations that talked about large reductions in waiting lists of those who had been waiting for four years and more. The South Eastern Trust came in two weeks ago to tell us that it had a 60% reduction in its waiting list. The figure had fallen from around 20,000 to around 8,000; I do not have the exact figures in front of me. When I asked the representatives to detail for us how many of those people had been treated, they said that they did not know. Do you not think that data, particularly data around waiting lists, needs to be accurate, transparent and full of information?

Mr Nesbitt: I absolutely do. The Member is maybe suggesting that some of the reduction in waiting lists is not through activity beyond validation: maybe or maybe not. Validation is a very important and necessary process. By the end of the financial year, which is a week or more away, I want to know not that we have exceeded the Programme for Government target of 70,000 but how we have exceeded it. I want to see it broken down by appointments, diagnoses and procedures. That, by necessity, will involve knowing the numbers trust by trust. I was not aware of the experience that the Member had with that trust, but I would like to rectify that as we come to financial year end.

Ms Flynn: Minister, I have been informed that the publication of the quarterly child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) data has been paused until quality assurance is undertaken. You referenced that in your original answer to John Blair. Can you elaborate a bit more on why that is the case or why that process is being taken forward?

Mr Nesbitt: I am afraid that I am not aware of that specific, but I can ask officials to bring me up to speed. Sometimes, with the roll-out of Encompass, we are still saying that the datasets are not validated yet. I have to accept that two years seems to be the norm for bedding in a system such as Encompass. It seems like a long time to me, but it is what it is.

Mr Stewart: Minister, data and understanding data is hugely important, particularly in the health service, which sees a huge volume of patients in high-pressure environments. How will Encompass help us better understand pressure and alleviate it?

Mr Nesbitt: By standardising data capture, improving timeliness and reducing manual returns, Encompass will enable more consistent and reliable analysis of the flow, the demand and the capacity. It already supports improved reporting in areas such as inpatient escalation beds. Further work is under way to complete ED corridor care reporting, which is important to me, and reduce reliance on manual manipulation of extracted data. That will give us consistent real-time data about the pressures across the Health and Social Care system. As I said to Ms Flynn, however, it will take a bit of time to bed in. The best description that I have had of it came from somebody working in the system, who said, "We have an engine to get us to the moon, but, at the moment, we are using it only for a short break". Its potential remains absolutely massive, particularly for public health initiatives.

Mr Speaker: We will now move on to topical questions.

Mr Nesbitt: The Member may categorise my trip as he wishes, but I met a lot of healthcare providers in Nashville, and, as we speak, they are upstairs at a follow-up meeting, so some progress has been made on cooperation on healthcare initiatives. I was not fully across what the Member says, however. I was not fully across what was happening in real time in Health and Social Care delivery.

Mr McGrath: Minister, I appreciate that you were busy in America. Lagan Valley Hospital and the Ulster Hospital were able to maintain their urgent care centres on the day, but it was the people of Downpatrick, on its busiest day of the year, who were left short at Downe Hospital. If you were not aware of that and you were not aware of ambulance response times in South Down when I asked you previously, I wonder whether you are aware that, over the past five years, £1·8 billion has been spent by health trusts on agency and locum staff. Is it the case, Minister, that your advisers are not telling you what is happening, or are you just not interested in the realities of the health service?

Mr Nesbitt: I am aware of the £1·8 billion that has been spent on agency and locum staff between the financial years 2020-21 and 2024-25. We incur that expenditure to ensure that safe and effective services are sustained, so it is important that we do so. It increases short-term capacity. Given the current gap between demand for care and the system's capacity to meet that demand, it is crucial. Reducing agency spend is a key priority, however. We are committed to bearing down on that cost. It will not be possible to reduce the cost completely, because we have to maintain services.

Yes, I am aware. I am aware that we have done good things elsewhere to reduce agency costs, and we now look at locum costs. We will continue, because here is certainly a starting point for making financial savings in Health and Social Care, but there is no end point.

Mr Nesbitt: The Member knows that I have a passion for addressing health inequalities, and Nashville's health inequalities are similar to ours. I was at Meharry Medical College, which was the first in the United States exclusively for African Americans. It was affirming to discuss the social determinants that the college is trying to tackle and to discover that they are the same social determinants that we are trying to tackle.

Another major takeaway came from my visit to Belmont University. What it can do at its "sim center", as it is called there — it is a centre for training and simulation — is out of this world for training doctors and nurses. Gratifyingly, the university is keen to form a relationship with Northern Ireland, and we will be trying to connect it to the right officials and, possibly, to our two universities.

Perhaps the most important thing that I did was to visit the National Cancer Institute in Washington. There has been a tri-jurisdictional relationship among Belfast, Dublin and Washington on foot of the 1998 agreement, and the first formal memorandum was signed in 1999. I still find it hard to believe that I am the first Northern Ireland Health Minister in 27 years to visit the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda. It was pointed out to me that, in the current political atmosphere in the United States, all such relationships are examined carefully to make sure that they are a two-way street and that America is not simply offering help, resource and finance to foreign countries.

Therefore, the visit, in particular to the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, was very timely.

Mr Burrows: It is good that the Minister is looking up and out for best practice across the world. Will he instruct his officials to do any follow-ups, particularly with US training colleges, to embed those transatlantic practices here?

Mr Nesbitt: Yes, there is a very clear need to do so. Belmont University has a desire to follow up. Meharry is also keen to follow up to talk about the social determinants of health inequalities. The National Cancer Institute continues to have a relationship with the Department of Health and, indeed, Queen's University. I was accompanied by Professor Mark Lawler from Queen's, who has many titles but is basically the lead man in cancer research. It was interesting to see the respect for him and the esteem in which he is held. He has that respect because he has spent a lot of time and effort forming a relationship with the National Cancer Institute. We, as the Department of Health, need to do that.

Mr Nesbitt: That is a major challenge, and I accept it. I have been contacted about that on many occasions. I have met parents of children who were on medication that was privately prescribed and, then, the prescriptions were no longer honoured. I understand that GPs have no obligation to do so. They are encouraged to look at whether it is within their competence and the rules of their governing body — the BMA. GPs can look at a whole set of criteria. However, this is happening: children are not getting the medication. Why are people going private? They are going private because the waiting list in the health service is far too long. Parents go private through love: they love their child and do not want them to have to wait, so they go private. Do I have a ready solution? I do not, I am afraid. Is that on my radar? Absolutely, it is. Am I looking for a solution? Yes, I am.

Ms Ní Chuilín: It is not just children; it is adults. Recently, we met representatives of the Belfast Trust and raised this issue with them. I respectfully suggest that you, as the Minister with lead responsibility, get everyone together. As someone who champions equality in health, you must see that this is one of the greatest inequalities: people are having to pay for peace and quiet, and for medication that should be available. The professional bodies cannot do it. The strategic planning and performance group (SPPG) cannot do it. Will you get the Chief Medical Officer, the SPPG, the professional bodies and the trade unions together and talk to them about addressing the gap, which is getting wider as we speak?

Mr Nesbitt: The Member will be aware that I commissioned academic research on the prevalence of ADHD. We have that report, and I have now asked for an options paper. I make this promise to the Member: once we have that options paper, I will bring those people and organisations together to find the best solution.

Mr Nesbitt: I cannot make that commitment as I stand here today, because I am not sure of what the implications would be. I am not aware of why those services had to be withdrawn. It would be foolish of me to commit to reinstating them when there may be good reason why it would not be easy or possible to reinstate them. However, you have put it on my radar: you want me to go and ask the question, and I will do that.

Miss Dolan: I thank the Minister. I will follow up in writing on the issues. Minister, following on from your answer, will you commit to ensuring that rural communities such as Belleek are not disproportionately affected by the loss of essential health services in future?

Mr Nesbitt: One of the benefits of going with you on the visit to Belleek was in my being aware that there are specific challenges not simply in rural healthcare delivery but in rural border healthcare delivery. That is a particular challenge, given that we cannot compete with Sláintecare on wages and salaries. It is attractive for healthcare professionals working somewhere such as Belleek to look over the border, and that is perfectly understandable.

It is important for me to get out and about. On Mondays and Tuesdays, I am either here or at the Department doing meetings or paperwork. That is all essential work, but it is not real. It is only when I visit somewhere like that GP surgery in Belleek that it becomes real, and I get a better sense of what I need to do.

Mr Nesbitt: I am aware that we are the only part of the United Kingdom not participating in the audit. I want us to participate in it, and officials do not disagree; they want to participate in it. There was something missing — I am having a mind blank — from our diabetes service that we have now rectified, which opens the door for us to participate in the national survey. I ask the Member to let me get back to him on a timeline, because I want to check that. We are nearly there.

Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for his answer. I will try to tease out more detail from him, either today or in the forthcoming information. Does the Minister accept that, if we are serious about reducing complications from diabetes and improving outcomes, we need not just activity data but an accreditable audit framework that shows where care is working, where it is variable and where, therefore, improvement is needed.

Mr Nesbitt: The Member's questions are all important. There are those in Health and Social Care who know a lot more than I do — as clinicians and operatives, they are much better qualified — who think that type 2 diabetes could be a total epidemic that could flood our ability to deliver health and social care. The Member identifies a really important area and important issues as a substructure of that.

Mr Nesbitt: I do not have specific plans for rural areas of Newry and Armagh, but I have plans for the whole of Northern Ireland. I accept that some of the challenges of provision are more severe in rural areas than in urban areas. The Member will be aware that the most important thing that I wanted to do — the one that has caused me most pain not to have done yet — was the introduction of the real living wage. That will be incredibly important in bolstering the existing workforce and making it more attractive for new recruits.

I have said many times that, to deliver health and social care, you need five things. You need buildings, beds, equipment and medicines, but those four things do not count unless you have the fifth, which is the workforce. I am focusing on the workforce. If we are going to shift left, community capacity will be critical.

Mr Wilson: On the back of that, does the Minister agree that having a responsive and reliable domiciliary care service in the rural community would greatly assist in reducing pressure on beds in our hospital system?

Mr Nesbitt: Absolutely. Last winter, there was a series of days in January when 400-plus people were in emergency departments having had decisions to admit, but they could not be admitted because no beds were available, but over 500 of the people occupying those beds had been deemed as being fit for discharge. If we can crack the issue with discharge, we will crack the issue of emergency department queues.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, before I address the amendments, I will make some general remarks about the Bill in my capacity as Chairperson of the Committee for Communities. It is a huge honour to stand here on behalf of the Committee for Communities to take part in the Consideration Stage of the Sign Language Bill. This is a momentous occasion for the deaf community in the North, who have waited with extraordinary patience, resilience and determination for the legislation to become a reality.

The Bill is a transformational step towards breaking down those barriers, providing formal recognition for Irish Sign Language (ISL) and British Sign Language (BSL) and ensuring that sign language users have their linguistic and cultural rights respected. It provides for the official recognition of BSL and ISL as languages with equal status here in the North; a statutory duty on prescribed public organisations to take reasonable steps to make their services accessible to sign language users; a commitment to promoting the use and understanding of sign languages, including greater access to sign language education for deaf children and their families; and a framework for accrediting sign language interpreters and teachers, ensuring professional standards and capacity-building in the sector. The Bill moves beyond disability legislation, recognising that sign language is not just an accessibility tool but a core aspect of cultural and linguistic identity.

The Committee believes that its scrutiny has added to the Bill's strength. It sincerely hopes that the legislation will mark a step change in how accessible public services will be for members of the deaf community and that their lives improve because of it. We will advise the next Committee for Communities on follow-up scrutiny of the legislation's implementation.

The Committee supports the Bill. During our scrutiny of the Bill, members of the Committee became acutely aware of the social exclusion that deaf and deafblind people can experience as a result of linguistic exclusion. We learned at first hand about the scale and extent of the negative impact of being unable to have access to and participate fully in education, employment, health, the justice system, the arts and leisure activities, and public and private services more generally. While it is outside of the scope of the Bill, I will soon return to services provided to the public but not by public authorities. The fact that the requirements of the Bill will apply across the Executive and will be for each Department to deliver, not just the Department for Communities, is crucial. The Committee looks forward to seeing how each Department develops and implements its sign language action plan in due course, not least that of the Department of Education, where stakeholders were clear that early education on and exposure to sign language will be essential in meeting the aims of the legislation.

The Committee is also supportive of a number of amendments that have been brought forward by the Minister. The Committee engaged constructively with the Department and proposed a number of specific changes where we considered that improvements could be made to the Bill. Those discussions have informed a range of amendments before the House today.

Many of you will know how unique the Committee Stage of the Sign Language Bill was and needed to be in order to enable and encourage members of the deaf community to engage fully with it and allow the Committee to receive what turned out to be invaluable evidence. The Committee Stage included working with the community and the Department to facilitate capacity-building events prior to the Bill's introduction; enabling evidence to be signed and sent via WhatsApp; providing two-way live interpreting at Committee meetings; and, when the Committee considered the Bill more generally, making sure that the consideration of the Bill was clipped and interpreted in both languages post meeting and then made available on the Assembly website; as well as facilitating specific events with children and the deafblind community.

Based on the unique approach proposed by the Committee, the House agreed to a Committee Stage of almost 11 months, which enabled us to hear directly from the deaf community here. They have reflected to us how involved they felt in that process. The Committee's call for evidence received responses from 42 organisations or individuals via Citizen Space and 44 signed responses via WhatsApp. We requested evidence from relevant organisations and briefings from the Department for Communities throughout our deliberations on the Bill. The Committee considered the provisions of the Bill over the course of 13 meetings and heard from 18 stakeholder groups. A wide range of issues relating to sign language and interpreting provision was brought to the Committee's attention. I intend to go through each of those in turn before I focus on the amendments listed today.

Whilst outside the scope of the Bill, accessing services that are available in the wider public sphere but which are routinely provided by private-sector companies and organisations was an issue that was raised with the Committee consistently. Respondents told us that everyday activities cause challenges, be that going to a hairdresser; knowing how or when to pay utility bills; grocery shopping; communicating with a solicitor; socialising; and being out and about on public transport. Those all provide unique challenges. The Committee has outlined that issue in the recommendations section of its report. We, as a Committee, feel strongly that it is important that the Department continue to expand access and interpretation on its agenda through sign language provision to promote consistency of access across society and for essential aspects of everyday life. That has been done successfully in other regions through the use of enhanced voucher schemes and providing access to a central video relay service (VRS).

The issue of enforcement was consistently raised during the Committee Stage of the Bill. As things stand, if public authorities do not provide interpretation, for example, deaf people have to navigate each organisation's respective complaints procedure — the Department must ensure that it delivers clear guidance on that — or use the Disability Discrimination Act to take a judicial review. That is clearly not ideal for a piece of legislation that acknowledges the deaf community not through a disability lens but as a linguistic and cultural minority. In its report, the Committee has recommended that the Department make full and appropriate use of its regulation-making powers, which are set out in clause 7, as soon as it becomes apparent that guidance alone is not enough. It is important that, after the Bill is passed, deaf and deafblind people do not need to identify as disabled in order to be able to access a linguistic and cultural right.

There was significant discussion about the duty placed on prescribed organisations to take "reasonable steps" to ensure that services and information are accessible to sign language users. The Committee was clear that the Department should provide greater clarity in its guidance on the application of "reasonable steps", ensuring that considerations of affordability and practicability do not result in reduced standards of access for the deaf community, and that services are as accessible to them as they are to hearing people.

On sign language action plans, as has been mentioned, members considered the broader ambition of the Bill in promoting the use and understanding of sign languages. Evidence highlighted the importance of sign language education.

While the Bill provides for that for deaf children and their parents, it was not clear how it would be included in the education system. The Department indicated to us that it could not confer functions on other Departments, so it is over to each Department to develop its own sign language action plans and tell the public how it will promote the use and understanding of sign languages. Guidance on that, and on many other issues that were raised with the Committee, will be central to the effective implementation of the legislation. It is important to note that, despite requests for a draft of the guidance and being told that the Department was working with the BDA on it, it came in the last month of the Committee Stage and appeared to be an early, short draft of the guidance that is to come.

The way in which the Department will consult with the deaf community on various aspects of the Bill was also consistently raised. Officials made it clear that, for the most part, consultation will happen through the sign language partnership group, which the Department expects other Departments to use. The Committee recognises the importance of meaningful consultation with the deaf community and strengthened that duty through its request to change clause 5 and clause 8 from requiring consultation with "one person or group" to at least "two persons or groups", whilst ensuring that that included BSL and ISL representation. It was also clear during the Committee Stage that the Department had consulted widely with the community. That is to be welcomed.

The implementation of the Bill will, undoubtedly, require more interpreters to be available to the deaf community — indeed, the success of the Bill will depend on that being the case. The Committee understands the extent of the work that is already under way to address that in advance of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. However, concerns remain that available interpreters here in the North are few. The Committee has recommended in its report that the Department produces:

The Committee held a bespoke engagement directly with people here who are deafblind, and the organisations that work to support them, to consider the specific needs of the deafblind community. They were clear that there are services for blind people and services for deaf people, but that those may not be suitable for deafblind people. Therefore the Department must ensure that the specific needs and experiences of deafblind people are explicitly reflected across all aspects of implementation, including interpreting provision, social work services and access to healthcare, transport and reporting mechanisms.

The Committee sincerely thanks colleagues in broadcasting, the Bill Office, the Research and Information Service (RaISe), Legal Services, Events, Education and Engagement and the interpreters for their support during the call for evidence and scrutiny of the Bill. We also thank the departmental officials for their support and patience with the Committee's queries. Particular thanks must go to members of the deaf community who took the time to provide evidence in their first language — British Sign Language and Irish Sign Language. Their contributions were invaluable to shaping the Committee's deliberations. I also thank the members of the Committee for their contributions to the careful scrutiny of the Bill and the issues that were raised in evidence during the Committee Stage. There was a shared recognition of the importance of getting the legislation right and ensuring that it delivers tangible benefits for deaf people and sign-language users across the North and makes a real difference to that community.

I move now to the amendments in group 1, which deal with sign language classes and the definition of "deaf community". Before commenting on the specifics of amendment No 1, it is worth noting that, in its report, the Committee advises the Department to make what is meant by "promote" in clause 2 explicitly clear in the EFM. It recommends that the definition include an obligation to, but not limited to, the provision of the availability of classes. The Committee welcomes the inclusion of "free of charge" from the Minister. That clarifies that the burden of the cost for classes will not be on the family of the deaf child to meet. It is right that children, close family, guardians and carers can learn to improve proficiency in sign language at no cost to themselves.

Amendment No 2 is a consequential amendment to amendment No 3, requested by the Committee, which is that the age of a child or young person who can gain access to free sign language classes be increased from 19 to 25. The Committee heard from stakeholders that aligning the Bill with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) and, indeed, UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) standards would ensure continuity of access during transition years.

The Department received further clarification of the rationale for the change from the National Deaf Children's Society (NDCS) and indicated that it was content to proceed with it. The Committee welcomed that hugely, as it is in keeping with how we approach other sectors in relation to transferring and transition.

Amendment Nos 4, 5 and 22 were tabled by Kellie Armstrong after Committee Stage, so the Committee did not take a view on them. Kellie had, however, stated her intention to table amendments, and Members can take a party view on them today.

The Member will speak to her amendments soon, but I will say that Kellie is a strong advocate for the deaf community. Her amendment No 4 relates to the availability of classes for people over the age of 25 who become deaf, their close family members and carers to learn the language or to improve their proficiency in it. Additionally, bearing in mind the cost to the Department and presumably to make sure that it does not halt the availability of classes for young people and their families, she has included provision for classes for over-25s to be paid for. At Committee, the Member recorded her dissent on agreement to clause 2, to which amendment No 4 relates. She indicated that, while the targeting of young people is welcome, concerns remained that people over the age of 25 who become deaf through illness or injury are not included when it comes to getting help to learn or improve their proficiency in the language.

In the Committee's report, we stated that we also remained concerned about the exclusion of people over the age of 25 who lose their hearing through illness or injury and asked for assurances that other policy areas will support such people to communicate in BSL and/or ISL. That also relates to amendment No 22, which seeks to replace the words "who normally use" with the words "who will benefit from using".

That concludes my remarks on the amendments in group 1.

Mr Durkan: I speak today on behalf of the SDLP. We are the official Opposition, but, on this occasion, there will be no opposition from us to any of the amendments. It would be great to see us all in agreement on something, because that does not happen in here often.

As Members have said, this is important legislation. It is of immense value. It matters, and it will make a real difference to people's lives, as it will make things that little bit easier and fairer for them. It is good to be reminded that that is exactly what this place is meant to be about: we are meant to be delivering improvements for the people whom we represent.

I thank the officials and all who have put so much work into the Bill to date. In particular, I commend the officials for their engagement and for their willingness to listen to and take on board most of the Committee's suggestions. I thank everyone who took the time to respond and contribute along the way, especially the deaf community, whose input has been vital. As a result, what was good legislation is now on the verge of becoming better legislation.

For most of us, understanding and being understood is something that we take for granted. We move through our daily interactions without giving it a second thought, but that is far from being the case for so many in the deaf community. The consequences of not having access to the right support can be dire. Recent reports have highlighted deeply concerning cases in which interpreters have not been available in healthcare settings, resulting in misdiagnoses. In some instances, individuals receiving a cancer diagnosis felt that they were left trying to grasp life-changing news without the support or understanding that they needed. Receiving that kind of diagnosis is extremely difficult in any circumstances, but not being able to comprehend fully what it means makes an already distressing experience completely traumatic.

Many individuals find themselves relying on family members or friends to interpret at GP or hospital appointments. They are giving up privacy just to understand information about their health. The same barriers present themselves across education, in the justice system and in access to welfare: they are everywhere. That is the reality that the Bill seeks to confront by stamping out the inequalities that jeopardise access to the basics and allow people to be left behind. Too often, those inequalities come at the cost of people's independence.

It is in that context that I turn to these amendments. We welcome the progress of the Bill and its clear commitment to promoting and protecting both British Sign Language and Irish Sign Language. It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the work of the Minister and my Committee colleagues on that. In particular, I pay tribute — this is also probably unusual here — to a Committee colleague from a different party, Kellie Armstrong, for her efforts to date on the draft legislation. I hope that the Bill will set out a clear direction and help to inform the kind of society that we want to build.

We support the Minister's amendments, which, for the most part, address concerns and take on board issues that the Committee raised. They either tidy up or strengthen the Bill and, in many cases, do both. The Bill already makes provision for sign language classes for young people under the age of 25 and their families, guardians and carers. That is welcome and necessary, but we do not think that it goes far enough. Across the North, growing numbers of adults lose their hearing later in life through age, illness or other factors. Those people often find themselves navigating a sudden and profound change in how they communicate with the world around them. Too often, that change can prove isolating: they are no longer able to follow conversations at home; communication in the workplace becomes almost impossible; and socialising becomes too anxiety-inducing. Without access to the right support, those individuals risk becoming invisible and, ultimately, suffering a much lower quality of life in their later years. The Bill does not make sufficient provision for those individuals. We hope to have that addressed by the end of the debate.

Legislation of this kind should not be framed too narrowly. Amendment Nos 4, 5 and 22 in the name of Ms Kellie Armstrong seek to address the gap directly by extending access to classes to all those who need them or would benefit from them. Amendment No 4 also provides the Department with the flexibility to introduce a fee for those classes on a cost-recovery basis should it choose to do so. That is a sensible approach. The Minister, in his opening remarks, cited low demand as the reason for not wanting or needing to put those changes in the Bill, but has stated his intention to roll out a pilot project to ascertain demand. If we are serious about breaking down barriers, those barriers need to be broken down for everyone; not just people who are born into the deaf community but those who come into it later in life. On the subject of sensible approaches, amendment No 3 further addresses that gap by providing more inclusive language that acknowledges those who acquire hearing loss later in life. Taken together, these amendments are relatively minor but extremely meaningful. They recognise that deafness happens for a variety of reasons and that communication needs can arise at any stage of life, and they aim to ensure that the Bill reflects that reality in a way that is both practical and forward looking.

I understand entirely where Ms Armstrong is coming from on, and where she wants to go with, amendment No 22. I am not going to steal her thunder on it. It is bizarre that I am speaking on someone else's amendment. It is very much her amendment, and she will soon explain it, but I support her aim. I do, however, acknowledge the Minister's concern here as well. I encourage him to work with the amendment's proposer, the Committee and the sector to come up, at Further Consideration Stage, with a form of words that is somewhere in between "who normally use" and "who will benefit from using".

I appreciate that there has been a discussion about what should or should not be prioritised at this stage, but legislation should set out a clear direction of travel. These amendments do just that. They provide flexibility to the Department, introduce safeguards around costs and expand the scope of the Bill to include people who would otherwise lose out. We cannot claim to be breaking down barriers with the Bill if we leave some people standing behind such barriers.

If we are serious about inclusion, we have to include everyone who needs or will need that provision.

Ms K Armstrong: People who use sign language have waited years for this legislation. As the Bill proceeds through Consideration Stage, Further Consideration Stage and Final Stage, they will be able to see how much has been included in it. When it becomes law, the new Act will vastly improve the provision of sign language across all public services. There will be significant support for children who are born deaf or with significant hearing loss, and their lives will be greatly improved by the availability of sign language and sign language classes for them and their families.

We have the opportunity to agree amendments that improve the intention of this vital legislation. The amendments were tabled after considerable consultation with the deaf community, and I am grateful for the work of the Committee for Communities, the Department for Communities and the many individuals and organisations that helped to finesse the Bill.

Following ongoing consultation with the deaf community, I have tabled three amendments to extend the provision of sign language classes directly to the many adults who, like me, have lost their hearing in later life. Those three amendments are part of group 1, and they are amendment Nos 4, 5 and 22. None of my amendments should come as a surprise to the Minister, the Department or the members of the Communities Committee. I have raised issues with that section of the Bill several times, as the record of the Communities Committee and the subsequent Committee report confirm.

While the Department kindly agreed to table a number of amendments suggested by the Communities Committee, I believe that an important consideration has not been included, and the Assembly now has the opportunity to include the needs of people who become deaf in later life. That includes people who become deaf due to age, illness and/or trauma. It includes serving military and police personnel and veterans whose hearing has been impacted by loud noises, such as explosions and noises at firing ranges. It includes people who work in industries where repeated loud noises have damaged their hearing, such as manufacturing, aviation, construction, the fitness industry, music, hospitality, waste management and recycling. It is important not to forget people who have been in receipt of chemotherapy or radiotherapy and those with some cancers, whose hearing can be damaged through the receipt of life-saving treatments. It includes older people who have age-related hearing loss — presbycusis — or who have had infections. Viral infections can lead to hearing loss, especially in older adults. People with illnesses, such as Ménière's disease, systemic illnesses and some cancers are included.

Hearing loss, as others have said, leads to isolation and loneliness. It reduces opportunities and removes a person's ability to communicate and the ability of others to communicate with them. Some people have had to leave work, and others have had to stop socialising. The lack of access to two-way communication means having to forgo privacy, as we have to depend on family or friends to listen and clarify what a doctor or consultant says during an appointment. A growing number of older people live in residential care but are cut off from others because their lives have been reduced to isolation and loneliness because they cannot hear. Not having access to ways to learn to communicate with others or for others to learn to communicate with them leaves them forgotten, means that they receive less from public services and makes their older years unpleasant.

I appreciate that there has been some discussion about what actions should be included in the Bill and about the Department's need to prioritise sections. I believe that any legislation should not be limited to a specific time or budget but should provide a clear intention. My amendments give a clear intention to support adults with hearing loss and give the Minister the ability to charge for classes provided for adults with hearing loss. I believe that that adds and clarifies rather than detracts from the intention of the Bill.

My first amendment — at amendment No 4 — is listed in group 1. To summarise, the amendment adds the availability of sign language classes:

It allows the Department, by negative resolution, to provide for a not-for-profit fee to be payable for those classes. I have listened to what the Minister has said today, and, if the amendment is passed, that can be changed at Further Consideration Stage to affirmative resolution. It is worth noting that the Bill in its current format only makes specific provision for sign language classes for people aged 24 and younger and their families, guardians and carers. While I agree that that is absolutely necessary, and it is important to include it in the Bill, there are a growing number of adults in Northern Ireland — one in six — who lose their hearing due to age, illness or trauma.

Mr Lyons: I thank the Member for giving way. She is right to highlight the fact that increasing numbers of people are losing their hearing. However, our research and consultation indicate that those people are not coming forward in the same numbers looking for those classes. We do not know the demand for that yet. That is why I am saying that we should do a pilot programme to assess, importantly, demand, the delivery partners and what the curriculum could be. I believe that we are walking into something for which there may not be demand because people are looking for other solutions to the problems that she raises. Is that not an appropriate step to take?

Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Minister for that. I do not agree, because there are currently 26,000 people on audiology waiting lists in health trusts across Northern Ireland. They have not even had their first hearing test. You said that we do not know how many people need it. There are no classes to test how many people in Northern Ireland would like to have sign language classes. I want to go to them, my partner wants to go to them, and the rest of my family wants to go to them, but there are none. Unless we have it included in the Bill, I do not think that there will be any classes.

The growing number of adults in Northern Ireland who lose their hearing due to age, illness or trauma need to have a specific provision in the Bill, just as has been provided for children, to provide classes for that group. In this amendment, I have included the ability for the Department to provide classes for people who have lost their hearing and are becoming deaf. That means that, while they may have English and can read and have communicated throughout their whole life, they cannot hear other people speaking English to them, so they need those people to speak sign language to them. That is the part of the Sign Language Bill that is missing. The Department may, by regulation, bring in charges for the classes, should the Minister and the Department choose to do so. I used the wording that was proposed by the DUP in the then Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill to enable the Department to regulate for fees, should the Minister wish to do so. It is not different or unusual for the Assembly, and it has been accepted before.

My second amendment — amendment No 5 — is a consequential amendment that will only be put if amendment No 4 is made.

My third amendment is amendment No 22. The current definition in the Sign Language Bill limits the deaf community to only those who normally use sign language. It does not take into account those who have lost hearing and those whose communication and subsequent isolation will be improved by using sign language. That needs to be changed, because a person with hearing loss — a person who is deaf — may have other options to use in order to convey what they want to say, but we need other people to learn sign language in order to communicate with us. That is the point. If you normally use sign language, but nobody else does, what is the point? Therefore, I wish to make a simple change to update the term "who normally use" to "who will benefit from using" sign language. It is more inclusive. I take Mr Durkan's point, however, and, if there is better language that can be brought forward to include all the people who will benefit from using sign language and for others to use sign language, and we can certainly use that. The amendment also reflects the ambition for the legislation to promote and increase usage of sign language. That is something that we all want and is intention of the Bill.

On behalf of the Alliance Party, I welcome these amendments. We will be voting in favour of all the amendments in group 1. We will be voting for all the amendments in group 2, which will be the subject of the next debate.

I thank every single member of the deaf community for their input and patience throughout this work. I thank the Communities Committee clerking team, who have worked incredibly hard on the Bill. I thank the Assembly's engagement staff, who delivered an innovative and inclusive Committee Stage, ensuring that BSL and ISL users were included and that interpretation was provided. I have heard from several deaf people about how impressed they have been by the online translations, the ability to attend and give evidence at the Committee and at outreach sessions, and the option to respond to online services in BSL or ISL, which is unique in these islands. The Assembly's website videos should be held up as an example of how to effectively engage the deaf community, because those of us who want to use sign language or have no choice but to use sign language are, at last, included.

Assembly staff have helped to make the process inclusive, and they have all played an important role in helping us to get to this stage. I would like you, Mr Speaker, to pass on my thanks to the Assembly staff, because their work has been outstanding. Finally, I thank Paula Clarke, whose patience and kindness have helped me and others to start to learn and embrace sign language. That opportunity was provided through the Assembly. I also thank our BSL and ISL interpreters, who have been with us throughout the Bill's passage and have ensured that our investigation of sign language has not left anyone behind.

Mr Butler: The Ulster Unionist Party places on record its thanks to the Communities Committee staff and all those who have contributed to the work on the Bill, including the Minister and departmental staff. In particular, we recognise the valuable input from stakeholders and especially the many members of the deaf community who took the time to provide evidence and to share their lived experience, because that is what this legislation should, ultimately, reflect. Crucially, we also recognise the work of the Committee staff team who, as a number of Members have already mentioned, ensured that members of the deaf community were able to engage with the Committee Stage in a meaningful and impactful way. That engagement has clearly helped to shape the Bill in a meaningful way, and much of what is before us today reflects that excellent work.

I turn to the group 1 amendments, "Sign language classes and definition of 'deaf community'". We broadly welcome the intent behind the amendments in group 1. At its core, the Bill is about access to sign language and getting that right early, which makes all the difference. Amendment No 1 puts beyond doubt that classes are to be provided free of charge. That reflects what was always understood, which is that cost should not be a barrier, particularly for children, young people and their families.

Amendment No 3, which extends the definition of young people to persons under 25, is also sensible. It reflects the reality that support does not stop at 18 and that the transition into adulthood is a key period. Amendment No 2, which updates the wording in clause 2 from "deaf children" to "young people who are deaf", may seem minor, but it matters. The language that is used in the Bill will shape how it is delivered in practice. Ultimately, though, the test will be whether it delivers real and meaningful outcomes.

Amendment No 22 proposes to shift the definition in clause 11 from those "who normally use" British Sign Language or Irish Sign Language to those "who will benefit from using" them. Again, that is a significant change. While we understand the intention behind it, the wording "will benefit from using" is much broader and less clearly defined. It moves away from those who rely on sign language in their day-to-day lives and potentially opens the scope of the Bill to a potentially much wider group. We are certainly listening to that part of the debate today. We are concerned that that will create uncertainty about who the Bill is intended to cover and potentially risks diluting its focus. We consider that the use of the phrase "who normally use" is a more grounded and workable definition for the purpose of this legislation. Those who lose their hearing later in life could still be captured in the original definition, should they come to use sign language in their day-to-day lives.

That said, amendment No 22 is trying to address a valid point, particularly for those who lose their hearing later in life. That is why we see greater merit in amendment No 4, which seeks to address that gap in a more targeted and practical way. Amendment No 4 recognises that there is a cohort of adults who are not currently provided for in the Bill. Through age, illness or trauma, people can find themselves having to relearn how they communicate, often at a difficult point in their life. Some provision is available, which is welcome, but access is not always consistent or clear. There is a strong case that that group should not be left without structured support. Amendment No 4 provides flexibility and includes the potential for fees to be charged but with the safeguard that costs cannot be exceeded. On balance, therefore, we are content to support Amendment No 4, but we are clear that responsibility will rest with the Department to ensure that adequate resources are available so that implementation will not adversely impact on delivery or access, nor will it divert focus from priority groups or create unintended barriers.

As detailed already, amendment No 5 is simply consequential: it follows from amendment No 4 and ensures that the Bill remains technically correct, so we are content to support it.

I will address group 2 in turn.

Mr Speaker: I call the Minister for Communities to make a winding-up speech on the group 1 amendments.

Mr Lyons: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I am absolutely delighted to be in the position to introduce and progress the Bill. Our deaf community has been waiting for it for years and years, and I am delighted that we can progress it further in the Chamber today. I have been humbled to witness at first hand the life-changing difference that early access to family sign language learning makes to families and their deaf children.

The Bill requires all prescribed organisations to:

That statement seems simple and obvious on paper, but, in practice, it represents a sea change for the people most closely impacted on by the changes that the Bill will bring. I thank Members for their support for the amendments that I have tabled, and I thank the Committee for the way in which it has dealt with them.

I will take a little bit of time to explain my position with regard to Kellie Armstrong's amendments. First, I thank her for her interest in the Bill and for the enthusiasm that she has brought to the work. We all have the same outcome in mind, which is to make sure that people have access to the support that they need so that they can communicate effectively. That is where we all want to end up.

I have some concerns with the amendments that she has tabled, however. The first one relates to classes. I hope that I have outlined to the House the concerns that I have. They are not because I do not believe that classes should be in place for those who want to avail themselves of them. I absolutely do. In fact, classes are provided through our colleges that people can take part in and pay for, in the same way that amendment No 4 states that there should be classes for which the Department can charge fees. However, the evidence that we have received indicates that there is low to no demand for such classes. I accept that the Armstrong family may be an exception to that.

Ms K Armstrong: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Lyons: I will happily give way.

Ms K Armstrong: Just before COVID — unfortunately, we were interrupted by COVID — I was fortunate to go to House Church in Newtownards, where we had up to 30 people learning sign language because they wanted to communicate with other people in the church who used sign language. If you provide it, they will come. At the moment, it is not being provided, so people do not know where the classes are. No further education colleges provide sign language classes in my area.

Mr Lyons: I know that there is demand for sign language classes and that many people take them up. Do not misunderstand me: that is not what I am saying. I refer specifically to people who become deaf later in life. Often, sign language classes are not what they want.

The Member is absolutely right to raise the issues with people getting access to appointments through the health service, and it is correct that she do so, but the organisations with which we have engaged and spoken to have told us that that is not what they are pushing for. It is not their primary objective. I repeat that the engagement that we have had with organisations in the deaf sector and with health and social care sensory support teams indicates that there is very low demand for such classes.

The Member will know whom I am talking about when I say that I have an official in my Department who has worked in that area for 14 years. That official has evidence of two occasions on which people have asked for classes. One's ask will be covered in what we are already introducing through the legislation, while the other did not come back with any further requests for information.

I do believe that demand is low, but the Member is right that that belief should be tested. We should run a pilot programme and see who comes forward. Amendment No 4, however, would mandate through legislation that classes must be provided. What would they look like? Who would deliver them? What would the curriculum look like? The curriculum is a big issue. We know what the curriculum looks like for children and young people and for their families, but what would it look like for the age cohort about which we are talking? Those are all questions that need to be answered, and I think that it is prudent that we find out the answers first. We do not need to put such classes in legislation for us to proceed with a pilot programme.

That is what I am putting to the House today. I understand from contributions that have been made that that is probably not where the rest of the Chamber is at, but I do think that it is the prudent move to take. Let us find out what the level of demand is. We did not need to put it in legislation at all to provide any classes, yet that is what we are doing. When exploring the curriculum needs and other needs, I think that it would be prudent for us to explore those needs in the first instance, and that is what I put to the House, while reminding Members that there will be a five-year review of the legislation. I am more than happy to make sure that amendments can be made to the legislation further on down the line, if required. What we are being told, however, is that that is not where the demand lies for those who lose their hearing later on in life. Let us run the pilot programme to find out whether that is the case, because if that demand is not there, we should not be bound by legislation to provide something that is not required. That is my view, but I am more than willing to work through the issues with Members over the next year. I recognise that there are other views, but I hope that Members will take on board what I have said.

Of course, if the Member's amendment No 4, is made, we will be accepting amendment No 5, because doing so would make sense, as it is consequential to amendment No 4. I have concerns about amendment No 22, however, because it would change what we are trying to do in the Bill. The Bill is focused on those across society who rely on British Sign Language and Irish Sign Language and on deafblind people who rely on hands or tactile signing versions of BSL and ISL. Amendment No 22 risks diluting the focus of the Bill, and I agree with the Member for Lagan Valley on that. That amendment would change its focus, which is on that small group of people and their families who have, up until this point, effectively been excluded from accessing information and services that the rest of our society takes for granted. The aim of the Bill is to recognise the deaf community of people who depend on sign language and who wish to share their deaf culture and access services through BSL and ISL. I do not think that it is intentional, but I think that the Member's amendment dilutes that by taking the focus away from those who rely exclusively on, or who normally use, British Sign Language or Irish Sign Language. I will give way to the Member.

Ms K Armstrong: I appreciate what the Minister is saying, but if the deaf community by itself — those who are already users of sign language — are the only people who are being looked at in the Bill, we are missing the fact that others out there will not be able to communicate with us. We need more than just the deaf people. We need the wider community to be able to speak with us.

Mr Lyons: Of course, that is what we want. Whether or not somebody else is able to communicate with you, if you are a user of sign language, you are already covered, so the amendment becomes meaningless. What we have in the Bill is:

I think that the point that the Member is trying to make is that there might be others who are not capable of using that sign language. I am happy to take another intervention, because I am not quite clear on what she is saying.

Ms K Armstrong: I will make it very clear. As stated in Chapter 1, if we are promoting sign language, it is not about limiting sign language to people who currently require it because they are deaf. Those people need to communicate with others, and others need to communicate with them. The Bill should open that up. Rather than just saying, "If you use sign language, this applies to you" —. People who use sign language will want to speak to other people, but those other people cannot access supports. If we want to talk to a GP, the GP needs to be able to use sign language. Let us open it up and promote sign language more widely.

Mr Lyons: I am more than happy to promote sign language widely. On the definition of "the deaf community", Chapter 4 states:

and for the purpose of the Sign Language Bill —

which include —

That is the group of people whom we are trying to help. The legislation is being put in place to help, first and foremost, the people who depend and rely on sign language. As Mr Butler indicated, that opens it up to a wider group of people. It is not about those who will sometimes use it or may at some stage benefit from using it but those who rely on it. It is about those who cannot get by, cannot get through the day and cannot access public services without it. With the Bill, my focus is on helping people who have not had the rights that the rest of us enjoy and so often take for granted. I want to make sure that those are the people whom we focus on first and foremost when the consultation takes place. Yes, there is a wider cohort of people who may use it in their everyday lives, including, perhaps, those who are hard of hearing. However, for me, the Bill's focus, first and foremost, is on the group of people who have struggled so much and have not had the rights.

That is why I will oppose the Member's amendment. I am determined that the Bill will ensure that the deaf community of BSL, ISL and deafblind signers will benefit from increased accessibility to public services; that, through increased visibility, awareness and understanding of languages and deaf culture, wider society will embrace the deaf community; and that the communication barriers experienced by the deaf community daily will be removed.

Mr Speaker: Amendment No 5 has been debated and is consequential to amendment No 4.

Mr Speaker: We now move to the group 2 amendments, which deal with consultation, conferral of functions, reporting and Assembly control. With amendment No 6, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 7 to 21.

I call the Minister for Communities to move amendment No 6 and to address the other amendments in the group.

Mr Lyons: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, has amendment No 22 been taken?

Mr Speaker: It is not to be taken at this stage.

Mr Lyons: Not at this stage.

Mr Speaker: It is to be debated at this point.

Mr Lyons: OK.

Mr Kingston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is amendment No 22 in the first group?

Mr Speaker: To be clear, amendment No 22 has been debated. It will be voted on in the second batch.

I call the Minister to move amendment No 6 and open the debate on amendment Nos 7 to 21. [Interruption.]

Order, Members. Leave quietly, we have business to do here.

Mr Lyons: I beg to move amendment No 6:

Mr Lyons: With the exception of amendment No 18, the amendments that I propose in this group have been developed with the agreement of the Committee. They are largely technical and clarificatory in nature and will improve the delivery of the Bill.

Amendment No 6 relates to clause 4, which provides the Department with the statutory powers to list in regulation the public bodies that would be required to take the reasonable steps outlined in clause 3. It is a technical amendment and clarifies the way in which the Department:

for the purposes of the Bill. The Committee requested that, rather than the listing of public bodies as prescribed organisations being subject to negative resolution, the Department should use the affirmative procedure. My officials were of the view that it is an administrative duty and that negative resolution would provide a proportionate level of scrutiny for such an administrative exercise and would expedite the listing of public bodies to ensure that they would be subject to the duties in the Bill sooner.

The Committee suggested the compromise of adding a public body as a newly prescribed organisation by negative resolution, whereas the removal of a public body as a prescribed organisation would be by affirmative resolution. The Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) advised that it is technically difficult to separate the two things in one clause, using negative resolution procedure for one and affirmative resolution procedure for the other. I am therefore content with the amendment to clarify that regulations on the listing of public bodies may not be made unless a draft of them has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the Assembly.

The amendments to clause 5 are technical and clarify how my Department engages and consults. Clause 5 places a duty on my Department to issue guidance about the statutory duties in the Bill. Before issuing that guidance, my Department must consult each of the public bodies that are listed as prescribed organisations and are subject to the duties in the Bill. Prior to the amendment, the Bill placed a duty on my Department to consult at least one person or group acting on behalf of the deaf community. That was a drafting device intended to emphasise the need for consultation. At the Committee's request, I now propose to increase the number of people or groups whom the Department must consult from at least one to at least two. Amendment No 8 clarifies that each of the persons or groups consulted is:

of the deaf community.

The amendments to clause 7 are technical in nature. Amendment No 10 is a technical clarification, as are amendment Nos 11, 12 and 13. The amendment to clause 7(5)(b) is similar to that to clause 5(3)(b). For the avoidance of doubt, it removes the perceived reliance on a single source for consultation, strengthens the scope of consultations and is consistent with the Committee's request to amend. Amendment No 15 is a technical clarification.

Amendment No 16 to clause 8 is technical in nature and clarifies how the Department must engage with the deaf community when fulfilling consultation duties, ensuring that the engagement will be inclusive, representative and balanced across BSL, ISL and deafblind people. Amendment No 17 is a technical clarification.

Amendment No 18, which inserts new clause 8A, is also a technical amendment. It brings further clarity to how the Department must consult the deaf community, including references to "part of the deaf community". In advance of today, I shared a draft of the new clause with the Committee, as it emanates from the Committee's request for clarity on how engagement and consultation must involve representatives from BSL and ISL. The amendment therefore ensures balanced input on BSL, ISL and deafblind methods of signing.

Officials are exploring options to increase the number of interpreters for deafblind people, which is an entirely different issue to the capacity-building of BSL and ISL interpreters. Therefore, when we need to consult on deafblind issues, we will not necessarily need to consult the whole deaf community, as it may not be relevant to everyone; it is a deafblind issue. When consulting, the Department must actively seek input specific to BSL, input specific to ISL and general input relevant to both languages. That prevents any consultation from becoming one-sided or unintentionally favouring one language group. Clause 8A strengthens the fairness, breadth and quality of consultation and ensures that voices from across the deaf community are heard and reflected in departmental decision-making. It provides clarity and flexibility for officials, reducing the risk of challenge over who was or was not consulted.

Amendment No 19 is an amendment to clause 9 that reflects the request from the Committee that a report evaluating the impact of the legislation be:

Amendment No 20 to clause 9 reflects the request from the Committee that a report evaluating the impact of the legislation be laid not more than five years after the legislation's coming into operation and, thereafter, every three years.

Clause 10 requires the Department to make regulations to establish a scheme for accrediting teachers and interpreters of BSL and ISL. That will provide assurances about professional competence and safeguarding. There is no intention by the Department to collect fees for such schemes at this time. However, I have agreed to the Committee's request to amend clause 10(5) as there is provision for the schemes to be with or without fees payable. The reference to the potential collection of fees is sufficient to merit the tabling of the amendment.

Amendment No 21 is straightforward. It provides that rather than state "are subject to negative resolution", regulations:

Mr Gildernew: I will speak to the amendments in group 2, which deal with consultation, conferral of functions, reporting and Assembly control.

Amendment No 6 reflects the Committee request to ensure that, when the Department removes organisations from the prescribed list — the organisations that must take reasonable steps to provide information and services and to offer or facilitate the use of ISL and BSL — that is done through the affirmative resolution procedure to ensure maximum transparency. The Committee was content that adding organisations and editing organisations as a result of their changing names, for example, could be done by negative resolution, but the Minister changed both to affirmative resolution. The Committee welcomes that.

The evidence that we received stressed that the list's impact depends on having a broad, inclusive and clearly defined list of prescribed organisations that is developed and reviewed regularly with mandatory deaf community consultation rather than done solely by the Department for Communities. Many warned that a narrow or discretionary approach, vague definitions of "public bodies" and limited Assembly scrutiny could allow key organisations delivering public functions across health, education, justice, social care, housing and community services to be excluded, thus undermining equality of access. Respondents therefore called for clear inclusion criteria; regular reviews; accessible publication of the list; an extension over time to non-statutory bodies providing essential public services; and consideration of centralised interpreting or of VRS or video remote interpreting (VRI) models to support consistent BSL and ISL access, particularly for vulnerable groups such as deaf children, older deaf people and survivors of abuse.

Questions were also asked about what was meant by the term "public character". The Committee advised the Department to make clear what:

means in practical terms in order to mitigate any misunderstanding that it might mean services outside the public sector.

The Committee requested amendment No 7 on the basis that there was consensus that consultation on the guidance must be meaningful, inclusive and ongoing, with concern expressed that the requirement to consult:

acting on behalf of the deaf community is too narrow and risks excluding the diversity of the deaf community, which includes BSL and ISL users, deafblind people, children, young people and families. Many called for broader, structured consultation involving multiple deaf-led organisations and sectors and the establishment of a national advisory group or the formalisation of the sign language partnership group. The Committee also advised the Department to make what is meant by the "deaf community" in clause 5 more explicit to ensure that the reference to:

does not mean two from the same part of the community. It is my understanding that the Minister has done that through amendment No 18, which is welcome.

Amendment No 8 was tabled by the Minister. Again, the Committee takes the view that it strengthens the consultation element and therefore supports clause 5, as amended by the Minister, in that regard.

Clause 7 relates to the Department's regulation-making powers, which, we were advised, it does not intend to use at this time. Instead, guidance for prescribed bodies will be used to ensure that they carry out their duties. The Committee was clear in its report that the Department should make full and appropriate use of its regulation-making powers under clause 7 as soon as it becomes apparent that guidance alone is not enough. That will ensure that deaf and deafblind people do not need to identify as disabled to access linguistic and cultural rights. Where clause 7 exempts any public bodies from the duties under the Bill, that should be communicated clearly and in a timely manner to the Committee. The Committee was content with amendment No 9, which will make sure that, where the Department needs to make regulations in relation to, for example, education, it is appropriate that the same regulations will not apply to the Department of Health. The amendment provides for functions that can be conferred on all Departments or on specific Departments, subject to the matter in hand.

The Minister's amendment Nos 10 and 14 were tabled after Committee Stage, so the Committee has not taken a view on them. The Committee did, however, consider his amendment Nos 11, 12, 13 and 15 and considered them to be technical in nature. Again, they strengthen the consultation element of the regulation-making powers where guidance does not suffice, and the Committee welcomes that.

Like with amendment No 7, the Committee requested amendment No 16 on the basis that respondents broadly welcomed the inclusion of a statutory consultation requirement before regulations are made, recognising the role of the sign language partnership group in previous engagement. However, the Committee expressed dissatisfaction with the wording:

The Committee viewed that as potentially tokenistic, unrepresentative and lacking transparency. Many people whom we heard from warned that consulting a single individual or group cannot reflect the full cultural, linguistic and experiential diversity of the deaf community, including BSL and ISL users, deafblind people, young people, families and regional communities, and risks undermining the Bill's purpose. Respondents therefore called for clause 8 to be strengthened to require consultation with a broad and representative range of deaf-led organisations. The Committee noted, in relation to concerns regarding lack of Assembly scrutiny in clause 7's regulation-making powers, that clause 8 provides that any regulations in clause 7 are subject to the draft affirmative Assembly procedure, which affords the Assembly a higher level of scrutiny of the regulations. Again, like with amendment No 7, the Committee advised the Department to make what is meant by the "deaf community" more explicit to ensure that the, at least, two persons or groups are not from the same part of the community. It is my understanding that the Minister has moved on that with amendment No 18, which, again, is welcome.

As was mentioned, amendment No 18, like amendment Nos 7 and 16, came after Committee Stage, so the Committee did not consider it. Amendment No 18 creates a new clause, and the Department advises us that it is technical in nature and intended to bring further clarity on how the Department must consult the deaf community, including through the reference to "part of the deaf community". The officials gave the example that, if the Department needs to consult on deafblind issues, it would not necessarily need to consult the whole deaf community, as those issues may not be relevant to everyone. The amendment also clarifies:

That is an issue that was raised with the Committee during the scrutiny of the Bill, and, indeed, we recommended that it be clarified in the EFM. The Department believes that the additional text delivers on that but with explicit statutory weight.

The Committee requested amendment Nos 19 and 20, which relate to how and when the Department reports on the impact of the legislation. Respondents broadly supported the statutory requirement for the Department for Communities to publish a report evaluating the Bill's impact, viewing that as a key mechanism for accountability, reflection and identification of ongoing barriers, but they raised concerns about the lack of scrutiny, detail and engagement in clause 9 as drafted. On that basis, the Committee requested that, as stated in amendment No 19, the reports are laid before the Assembly. Respondents highlighted the fact that reports lack mandated consultation with the deaf community and risk becoming tokenistic unless they are accessible in BSL, ISL and English and underpinned by clear, outcome-focused metrics. There was consensus that the clause should specify reporting content, performance indicators and monitoring arrangements, including measures on interpreter availability; service accessibility; and deafblind experiences, education, employment and quality of life. Most respondents felt that a five-year interval was too long, and, based on the evidence that the Committee heard, it requested that, after the first five-year report — in order to allow the time for the legislation to embed, as we heard about from officials — every subsequent report should be at three-year intervals. Therefore, we welcome the Minister tabling amendment No 20. It was noted that, if the clause is not commenced at Royal Assent or shortly thereafter, the first report would take longer than five years to publish. For that reason, we eagerly await the commencement of the clause very close to Royal Assent.

Finally, amendment No 21 relates to the Assembly procedure for the accreditation scheme for teachers and interpreters. The Committee requested that that be changed from negative to affirmative procedure based on the evidence that we received during Committee Stage and the level of concerns that were raised regarding that issue. The Committee recognised that there is ongoing work between the Department and the National Registers of Communication Professionals who work with deaf and deafblind people and the Register of Irish Sign Language Interpreters, but we also recognised that there is currently no equivalent body for BSL/ISL teachers or tutors. Accreditation is essential for quality, consistency and public confidence and must be reflective of the North's use of both BSL and ISL, with equal recognition for each. We also heard that hearing-led models risk excluding experienced deaf tutors and undermining linguistic and cultural norms.

There was broad agreement that teachers and interpreters require distinct accreditation schemes with clear accessible pathways, recognition of existing qualifications across the North, Britain and Ireland, and supportive transition arrangements for experienced tutors without formal accreditation. Respondents highlighted acute workforce shortages, particularly of ISL deaf and deafblind interpreters, which call for long-term investment in education, early years provision, training routes, bursaries and career pipelines while maintaining quality over volume. Concerns were raised about the absence of timescales and clarity on deafblind interpreting. There was clear consensus that accreditation must be developed with, by and for the deaf community to raise standards while building sustainable capacity.

This is an historic and long-overdue moment for the deaf community in the North. It is about fairness, inclusion and recognition. The Committee for Communities stands fully behind the Bill and supports its progression through its Further Consideration and Final Stages in this place. It is worth noting the remarkable consultation and Committee process that was facilitated by the Committee Clerk and her team, which allowed proper and genuine co-production. That has shown itself in what is a well co-designed and co-produced Bill. Finally as Chair, I say this to all of you who have fought tirelessly for this day to come: thank you.

Your advocacy, resilience and vision have made this possible.

I will now make a few brief remarks as Sinn Féin spokesperson for communities. On behalf of Sinn Féin, I want to state how proud my party colleagues and I are to stand here and support the Sign Language Bill at Consideration Stage. The Bill will go a long way towards ensuring that the deaf and deafblind community can play a full and equal role in our society. For too long, their right to access public services in their own language has been denied. Whilst I accept that many challenges remain in delivering full equality for that community, the Sign Language Bill is an important step in the right direction.

I addressed much of the detail in my remarks as Chair, so I will not repeat it. I do, however, reiterate my thanks to the community for their input to the Committee Stage. This is their Bill, so it was entirely appropriate that we took the time at Committee Stage to hear as many views as possible and to shape the draft legislation according to their needs. It has been an honour to meet so many people from the deaf and deafblind community over the past year and to learn just how important their language is to them as both a tool of communication and — this is crucial — an intrinsic part of their identity and culture. Indeed, it is a vibrant, beautiful and dynamic part of that culture. I have enjoyed very much the time that I have spent learning sign language. It is something that I intend to continue long into the future. I was very eager to ensure that the co-design process did not end with the introduction of the Bill and that it continued right through the legislative process. I firmly believe that we have done that effectively. Our example of best practice can and should be replicated by other scrutiny Committees going forward.

Co-design works. The Bill is an example of what can be achieved when co-design is done correctly. Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

Mr Durkan: The Minister and the Chair have outlined succinctly and comprehensively the rationale, purpose and function of each individual amendment in group 2. They all tie in together to improve and strengthen the draft legislation. The majority of them, as has been set out, are really the fruits of a thorough, robust and constructive Committee Stage. The Chair has described in detail the Committee deliberations that were the genesis of many of those amendments. I will spare Members and those who are watching repetition of all that.

As I said earlier, the SDLP supports this important but overdue Bill, and welcomes and supports all those amendments. We look forward to the Bill's progression through the Assembly's legislative process and its ultimate impact on the ground of opening doors, affording opportunities and enshrining equality.

Mrs Cameron: I rise to support the Sign Language Bill at Consideration Stage. I record my thanks to the Minister and the Chair of the Committee for outlining so well the work on the legislation as it made its way through Committee Stage. It is important to note that it is a complex, sensitive piece of legislation, and the Assembly has done itself proud in ensuring that those who are most important to that conversation — the deaf community — were very much heard and that we were able to hear them. The work that has been done by the House to facilitate that has been phenomenal and sets a great example going forward. This is important and timely legislation, and we are so glad to see it making its way through the Chamber. It is about recognition, respect and, most importantly, improving the everyday lives of people across our communities who rely on British Sign Language and Irish Sign Language. For many in the deaf community, barriers still exist to accessing services, information and opportunities that others often take for granted. The Bill represents a clear and meaningful step towards addressing those barriers. It places a duty on Government not simply to acknowledge sign language but to actively promote it and to consider the needs of those who use it. That matters.

I record my appreciation of the Minister for Communities. He has approached the legislation in a thoughtful, measured and constructive way. It is clear that there has been genuine engagement with stakeholders and a willingness to listen throughout the process. I also acknowledge the departmental officials and thank them for their work in drafting the legislation and supporting its progression through the Assembly. I know that that work has gone on over many years, and it is greatly appreciated. The amendments that the Minister tabled reflect that approach and strengthen the Bill. They provide clarity and ensure that the legislation is workable and deliverable in practice. Crucially, they do so without losing sight of the original purpose of the Bill, and that is the right balance to strike. It is not legislation for the sake of legislation; it is focused, proportionate and grounded in what will make a real difference.

It is also important to recognise that the Bill does not exist in isolation; it sits within a wider context of how we support people, remove barriers and ensure that services are accessible to all. The Bill provides a strong foundation on which we can continue to work. It recognises sign language as an integral part of our society. It places a responsibility on Departments to reflect that in how they operate. There will, of course, always be calls to go further — that is the nature of any legislation — but it is important that we proceed in a way that is evidence-based and sustainable and that ensures delivery. The Minister has made it clear that, where further work is needed, it will be taken forward in a practical and measured way. That is the responsible approach, particularly in the current financial climate.

The Bill before us is clear in its intent and realistic in its delivery. It has been carefully developed, properly scrutinised and broadly supported. Above all, it sends a clear message to the deaf community that its language, culture and voice are recognised and valued. For those reasons, I am pleased to support the Bill at Consideration Stage, and I look forward to seeing it progress further.

Mr Butler: I rise to speak on the group 2 amendments on consultation, conferral of functions, reporting and Assembly control. These amendments are really about how the Bill will operate in practice, how decisions will be made, how people will be engaged with and, crucially, how the Assembly will hold that process to account.

Amendment Nos 6, 7 and 8 will strengthen consultation requirements, and that has to be welcomed. However, engagement must be meaningful and ongoing, not just a tick-box exercise.

Amendment Nos 13 to 16, which move from consultation with one "person or group" to two or more, are sensible. They reduce the risk of engagement being too narrow or dominated by a single perspective. That said, numbers alone are not enough; what matters is that the engagement reflects the diversity of experience in the deaf community.

Amendment No 17 provides further clarity about those who are "representative or cognisant of" those views. We believe that flexibility to be helpful, but it will need to be applied carefully to ensure that it works as intended in practice.

Amendment No 18 is a significant addition. It places a clear requirement on the Department regarding how engagement should be carried out. In particular, it recognises the need to reflect both British Sign Language and Irish Sign Language. That reflects the reality here and strengthens the Bill.

Amendment Nos 19, 20 and 21 continue that theme, reinforcing the need for consultation to reflect different parts of the deaf community. The principle is sound. The key will be consistent and meaningful delivery, which we will be mindful of keeping an eye on.

Amendment Nos 9 to 12 strengthen Assembly oversight by moving key powers to the affirmative procedure. That is a positive step. It is welcome and ensures that regulations are properly scrutinised and approved.

The changes to clause 9, requiring reports to be laid before the Assembly and reducing the reporting period from five years to three years, are also welcome and should help us to refine, review and improve. They have the potential to improve transparency, help to maintain momentum and, hopefully, garner the confidence of the deaf community. Similarly, the amendment to clause 10, applying the affirmative procedure, is an important safeguard.

Overall, we believe that the amendments strengthen the Bill, particularly in relation to consultation, accountability and oversight. They place a greater emphasis on meaningful engagement, ensure that a broader range of voices is heard and enhance the role of the Assembly in scrutinising how the Bill is implemented. Ultimately, however, the test will be in the delivery, ensuring that what is set out in the Bill translates into real, practical support for those who need it and that the commitments made here are followed through in practice.

On a final note, I will add that the Bill is a really good piece of legislation. I have been through it and communicated with my party colleague Andy Allen, who is on the Communities Committee. He has applied rigorous scrutiny to it and has been all over the detail. However, the reflection of it must be felt by members of our deaf community regardless of their age or where they are in our community.

Mr Speaker: I call the Minister for Communities to make a winding-up speech.

Mr Lyons: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I thank everybody who contributed to today's debate. The Bill has been developed in consultation and partnership with the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) community and strengthened, I believe, through constructive engagement with the Committee.

It is fair to say that I have had some issues with how the Committee does its job, and I am sure that the Committee has some issues with how I do my job. However, that being said, I think that the Bill is a good example of the Committee working well, listening to concerns, taking on board changes and genuinely working together. I have been impressed by how the Committee has ensured that it has been accessible to those who will be affected most by it. I thank the Committee members and, in particular, Committee staff, who, I am sure, had much work to do in the organisation and set up to make sure that it could happen.

I will continue to work with the deaf community and those who have a role in promoting sign language, which has already increased visibility, access and opportunities for people to learn and use it in everyday life.

I believe that good work has been done, but it is not the end. I will have more to say at the later stages of the Bill, but, for now, I thank everybody who has helped us to get to this stage and look forward to it passing Consideration Stage.

Mr Speaker: Ms Armstrong, I apologise for omitting to call you earlier. If you wish to speak, you are welcome to do so.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you very much. As I said earlier, group 2 amendments, all in the name of the Minister, will be accepted by the Alliance Party today, and we are delighted to do so.

The Minister and his officials engaged with the Committee for Communities with open ears. They were willing to listen and to take forward amendments that have significantly improved the Bill. Sometimes, when officials come to Committees, they do so with some hesitation and concern that we are just there to get in the way and be awkward. However, to be honest, we all believe in the same thing, which is that we have to make better provision for people who are deaf and use BSL, ISL and deafblind language.

It is an absolute delight today to see that, in group 2, the Minister and the Department have increased the number of organisations and people who will be consulted, given that the Bill covers a number of languages; not just one language but BSL, ISL and, eventually, deafblind. It means that consideration has been given. The Committee was concerned that, if just one person was listed, in the future, it could have been a representative of BSL or a representative of ISL. That has been changed now by amendment No 18, which is the new clause that is being added before clause 9.

The Minister and his Department had also committed to add to the explanatory and financial memorandum the intention that, when consultation takes place, representatives of BSL and ISL would be considered. The Bill mentions two groups or individuals, which may be one from each language, if that is appropriate. As the Minister rightly said, there will be parts of regulations that may relate only to deafblind people, for instance, or could relate to ISL or BSL, so that makes perfect sense.

Changing the requirement to lay regulations from negative resolution to require the approval of the Assembly also helps to improve transparency. That is something that we are all keen to do. One of the recommendations that came out of the RHI report was that transparency should be improved in this place.

I welcome amendment No 20 to clause 9: five years for the first report and three years thereafter. When you count up the timelines, five years is plenty of time for the Department and people in the deaf community to work together to bring forward some of the regulations that are outstanding. Every three years means that reports will be laid in different mandates rather than, perhaps, some falling within one mandate.

Amendment No 21, to leave out "subject to negative resolution" and insert "approved by a resolution of, the Assembly", draws attention to clause 10, which is important because it concerns accreditation of teachers and interpreters.

It is vital that we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. People who have used sign language from birth or later in life and are fantastic at doing that and have a shared life experience that they can express through sign language are vital when we are talking about the culture and promotion of sign language.

We are joined today by Brian Symington and John Carberry, and I am thinking about John's wife Agnes, all of whom, through their use of sign language, have been able to support and help children, particularly those who attend Jordanstown School, to use sign language in a way that I cannot at the moment, because my sign language is static and stilted. Theirs is a free-flowing, beautiful language that can be shared with children so that they, too, can use their signs in expressive ways. It is beautiful to see the smiles on those children's faces when others communicate back with them.

As others have said, this is an important Bill. On behalf of the Alliance Party, I thank the Minister and his Department for bringing it forward. I hope we can get this all done and dusted before the summer recess or even before that if we could. It is vital that we show the deaf community that, when we commit to doing something and legislating, we do that. I thank the Minister and the Department for doing that.

I also thank my colleagues in the Communities Committee. This was one of our first big pieces of work in the mandate, and we took a bit of extra time in order to get the consultation right. That was done well, and it was very inclusive. We have heard from others that it was better than in other parts of these islands where sign language Bills have been enacted.

I ask the Minister and the Department to consider using the learning from the way in which the Assembly has allowed consultation to happen, where people can provide their consultation responses by video in sign language. That is so valuable and means that people are able to communicate in their language.

Mr Speaker: Minister, do you have anything to add, or will we leave the last word to Ms Armstrong? No? There you are, Ms Armstrong; you got the last word. Not for the first time [Laughter.]

Mr Speaker: That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Sign Language Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker. I offer my personal congratulations to the Assembly, the Committee and all the Members involved in bringing forward the Bill. It is really important that we did that. Well done, everyone.

Members, take your ease while we move to the Hospital Parking Charges Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call the Minister of Health, Mr Mike Nesbitt, to move the Consideration Stage of the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the single amendment for debate. The amendment will be debated under the heading "Annual report on costs". I remind Members that, once the debate on the amendment is completed, the Questions on stand part will be taken at the appropriate points in the Bill. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

Mr McGrath: I beg to move amendment No 1:

Mr McGrath: When I last spoke on the Bill, I described the entire process as "a farce". Today, I stand not just to repeat that but to fix one part of it, because that is what a constructive Opposition do.

We have in front of us legislation that does one simple thing: delay. It delays a promise that was made to all staff; it delays delivery; and it delays accountability. The Bill pushes the implementation of free hospital car parking to a date that may, at the discretion of the Department, be as late as May 2029; yet, despite that delay, the years that have already passed and the millions that have already been spent, as has been discussed, we still do not have a clear and transparent account of the true cost of the policy. My amendment would close that gap, because trust is at the heart of the issue.

In 2022, following the passage of the private Member's Bill, staff were told that free parking would be delivered, that that would not impact on front-line services and that money would be found; yet, here we are, four years on, still waiting. We are now told that many millions have been spent; we are told that money may have to come from front-line care if we do not carry out this delay; and we are told that implementation must be delayed again. However, what we are not told clearly or consistently is how much has been spent; how much has been lost through the delay; and how much, ultimately, this will cost the public purse.

My amendment is straightforward. It requires the Department to publish within six months a full report on the costs arising from the delay and to continue to report annually thereafter. It is not to be hidden away or buried in departmental papers or briefings but laid clearly before the Assembly and the public. If we are going to delay delivery, the very least we owe is honesty about the consequences.

All parties supported the Bill four years ago, and we have to own the consequences of that. My amendment is about ensuring that decisions taken in the Chamber are matched by our responsibility to the people outside the Chamber who elected us. It is about ensuring that, when legislation is passed with promises attached, those promises are not eroded quietly and without explanation. It is about ensuring that the public, particularly our health workers, are not left in the dark. We cannot continue with a situation in which infrastructure is installed and then sits unused and in which the costs of delay simply accumulate without scrutiny. That is not good governance; it is not accountability; and it is certainly not fair on all the people who were told that help was on the way.

The amendment does not fix every flaw in the Bill, but it does something essential, which is to shine a light. It means that, if we delay, we must explain why; if we spend, we must account for that spending; and, if we ask people to wait, we must be honest about why and for how long. Without transparency, there can be no trust, and, without trust, legislation such as this becomes exactly what I said it was: a farce. I hope, therefore, that all Members will support my amendment to ensure that this place operates with honesty, openness and transparency at its core.

Mr McGuigan: The Sinn Féin position remains, as outlined previously, that the original Hospital Parking Charges Act 2022 should be implemented and charges removed without delay. You would not know it from the debate on the Second Stage of this Bill, but, when the Assembly debated that legislation, almost four years ago, it passed with the support of all the main parties. The Health Minister has also said that he supports the purpose of the original Bill.

Even this Bill, introduced by the Minister of Health, aims to delay, not stop, the removal of hospital car parking charges. I found it surprising, therefore, to hear the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party suggest, during yesterday's debate on the motion on waste and inefficiency in government, that ending hospital parking charges was a waste of money. Maybe the Ulster Unionist Party does not understand the Health Minister's position, or maybe there is a difference of opinion.

The reality, of course, is that there has been waste and there still is waste: a waste of time by the Department of Health in not implementing the original Act agreed by the Assembly. That failure impacts on patients and staff. It has a negative impact on our health workforce.

That failure also has a real-life impact on patients, such as those highlighted to me today in an email from Young Lives vs Cancer, a charity that supports around 260 children and young people with cancer every year. Many of the families of those children already travel an average of 350 miles a month to the Cancer Centre in Belfast. They mostly travel by car, because immunosuppression and poor public transport leave them with no viable alternative. Despite supposed exemptions, that charity's research shows that around 62% of young cancer patients and their families still pay to park at hospitals. That demonstrates that the current concessions do not work in practice.

The charity also points out that partial concessions are no substitute for the full removal of the charges, with 71% of families already struggling with the cost of travelling for treatment and one in 10 appointments being missed or delayed because they cannot afford the average cost of £250 a month that it takes to get there. It is simply not fair to ask those families to wait for another three years without effective protections.

I take umbrage at anyone in the Chamber castigating the previous legislation. At the Second Stage, we voted against any further delay to the removal of hospital car parking charges. What we want to see is the original Act being implemented as quickly as possible.

I accept that the amendment seeks to maintain scrutiny of the costs that have been created by the delays, and I acknowledge the intention to ensure that unavoidable spending is not overlooked.

If we want to look at wastage, as the Ulster Unionist Party leader pointed out yesterday, or at inefficient spending, we can do so in the health service and many other areas, because it is something about which we should all be concerned. Today, for example, it has been reported that almost £1·8 billion has been spent on agency and locum staff in the health service over the past five years. Against that backdrop, presenting further delay of the 2022 Act as a cost-saving measure seems misplaced when far more significant and urgent financial inefficiencies remain unaddressed.

Mr O'Toole: I will speak briefly in support of my colleague Colin McGrath's amendment to the Hospital Parking Charges Bill. At Second Stage, we indicated our frustration by forcing a Division. It is important that we, as the Opposition, be robust in holding to account the Executive, and, indeed, the Assembly, for the promises that we make to the public and then fail to keep. Let me be absolutely clear: the final Bill that the Assembly passed in 2022 was the Hospital Parking Charges Bill. We told hard-pressed staff, who were, and are still, facing enormous inflationary pressures and who were suffering and had to threaten strike action repeatedly in order to get fair pay settlements that we were taking action to address the cost of parking for them. The very first thing that we did when we returned was to delay the Act's implementation, and we are now delaying its implementation again. People will question the Bill, and they are entitled to do so. It is legitimate to say, as Mr McGuigan did, that people, particularly hospital staff, are hard-pressed, so, although there will be debate about the targeting in the initial Bill, there will also be debate about how we help hard-pressed healthcare staff.

I take issue with some of what Mr McGuigan said, however. He —.

Mr Donnelly: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will in a second.

I am not sure that Mr McGuigan's party was going to oppose the delay until we forced a Division. I presume, and the Minister of Health can correct me if I am wrong about this —.

Mr McGuigan: Will the Member take a point of order?

Mr O'Toole: I will in a second.

I presume, and the Health Minister can correct me about this, that the First Minister and the Minister of Finance agreed to the legislation at the Executive. They certainly did not raise any objection to its introduction.

I will take interventions, first from Mr Donnelly and then from Mr McGuigan.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Before anyone says anything else, I remind Members that we are discussing the amendment, not the Bill overall. If their remarks are not about the amendment, Members will be stopped.

Mr Donnelly: I thank the Member for giving way. It is my understanding that staff car parking is currently free in most trusts. Does the Member have different information?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Sorry, folks. I am not sure which bit of what I just said that Members did not hear, but I repeat that we are debating the detail of the amendment at this point, not the Bill's overall scope.

Mr O'Toole: Mr Deputy Speaker, the purpose of the single amendment that we tabled is to establish the costs of delaying the Bill. That is what an Opposition should be doing. Otherwise, the Bill would have just gone through Consideration Stage, as the first Bill did in 2022 and, I believe, the second Bill did, without a Division. The public, who were promised free parking, would wonder, "What the hell's happening here? What are these people doing? They make promises that they then don't keep". At the very least, we can explain to them the cost of not keeping those promises and how much has been spent on implementation that has not been followed through on.

I will give way to Mr McGuigan, because I promised him that I would.

Mr McGuigan: Mr O'Toole thinks that his power as Opposition leader means that he can do great things, but I can assure him that Sinn Féin opposed the Bill at Second Stage and that that was nothing to do with the SDLP.

Mr O'Toole: I am grateful for that clarification. I would never be so bold as to assume powers that I do not have. I have to work very hard as leader of the Opposition, as does Colin McGrath and the entire SDLP team. We are the official Opposition, and we have a job to do. We are not going to be dissuaded or discouraged from doing that, despite the fact that other Members do not like it. That is grand, however. We tabled an amendment, which Colin moved. The amendment is about accountability. The public will see that there will be some accountability for the costs that have been incurred. This goes to the heart of the amendment, so let us be honest: the very last thing that you did before the election was to make a promise to the people. You then campaigned on it. The very first thing that you did when you came back was to delay its implementation, and you are now delaying it again.

If you are getting on for three quarters of a decade, and counting, before implementing it, the public will want to know how much has been spent on implementing it, but, at the same time, not delivering it. That is all that the amendment does: it provides an important piece of accountability. We are pleased to move the amendment. That is what opposition and accountability means, and we are proud to be able to do that job on behalf of the public.

Mrs Dodds: I will not be as long-winded on the amendment as the leader of the Opposition was. We will support the amendment, because it is important to have transparency in the operation of government and the operation of democracy. Of course, there is a cost to not implementing the Bill and there is a cost to implementing it. It would be great if the Minister could outline those costs to us. That would be useful.

I will make a couple of remarks on the amendment and the "waste of money" comment. It is important that, when we debate amendments like this, we do not use throwaway lines. I do not believe that the Bill was ever a waste of money, but I do believe that, when finances are tight, priorities matter.

Mr Chambers: As has been said, the decision to defer the implementation of the 2022 Act was not taken lightly but was rooted in the financial realities that face health and social care. I am confident about that. In that context, it is essential that we proceed with caution where decisions could have unintended consequences for front-line care. As was discussed during the Second Stage debate, the income generated from hospital car parking charges is not surplus funding that is sitting idle; it is being used to support the day-to-day operations of hospital sites. Removing that income without a fully costed and sustainable replacement would simply shift the burden elsewhere within the system. Ultimately, that would risk impacting front-line patient services.

In the spirit of needing to concentrate minds and resources on the areas that matter most, I will say that I sometimes question the benefit of, or value added by, amendments such as those that are before the House. A report for a report's sake would do little to improve the position for patients or staff. Overall, however, in this circumstance, the proposal to require an initial report on the costs associated with the delayed implementation of the Act, followed by annual reporting, is a reasonable step that aligns with the principles of transparency and accountability. While it has been made clear that the core costs associated with operating hospital car parks, such as the cost of rates, maintenance and the automatic number plate recognition technology (ANPR) systems, will remain broadly unchanged regardless of whether charges are in place, there is, nonetheless, value in setting out the information in a clear and accessible way. Doing so will allow Members and the public to better understand the financial implications of the Act and its deferral.

Mrs Dodds: Will the Member give way?

Mr Chambers: Sorry, I want to make progress.

It is important not to introduce administrative burdens or processes just for the sake of it. That is why we must ensure that efforts to enhance transparency do not inadvertently divert resources from the services that we are seeking to protect.

It is worth acknowledging that the amendment reflects a wider concern among Members about ensuring that decisions in this area are evidence-based and subject to appropriate scrutiny. That is a legitimate and important role for the Assembly — a role that should be welcomed rather than resisted. If all Ministers and political parties were prepared to listen to evidence, we could have avoided this morning's statement on minimum unit pricing.

In conclusion, I believe that supporting the amendment is a reasonable balance between recognising the financial necessity of the deferral and embracing the need for openness and accountability.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): I welcome the opportunity to respond to the debate on the amendment, which I will support. I am conscious that Mrs Dodds was asking to make an intervention. If that is still the case —

Mrs Dodds: Yes.

Mr Nesbitt: — I am happy to give way.

Mrs Dodds: I was just reflecting on your colleague's comments about transparency and about how setting things out properly matters. Minister, during the Second Stage debate, I asked you to look again at the concessions that are available to groups. We all received an email this morning from families of children with cancer, and only 62% of those families are receiving free hospital car parking. You should at least consider promising the House that you will look at those concessions so that those types of people are not impacted by this decision.

Mr Nesbitt: It is fair and reasonable to expect the trusts to review their policies in the light of what we appear to be about to legislate for. Absolutely.

Mr Deputy Speaker, my officials wanted me to reflect on a number of points raised during the Second Stage debate, but that would incur your admonishment, so I will truncate my remarks pretty significantly.

The amendment proposes two things: an initial report within six months outlining the costs arising from the delayed implementation of the 2022 Act; and annual reports thereafter on the costs associated with the Act in subsequent years. While the underlying cost base associated with operating car parks does not materially change as a result of the 2022 Act or the deferral of the Act coming into operation, I recognise that transparency is important. Therefore, to be clear, the main cost components are in respect of rates, staffing, maintenance and ongoing automatic number plate recognition system costs. Those costs will continue regardless of whether parking charges remain or are abolished. For example, around £5 million is paid annually in rates to Land and Property Services, and £3 million a year is spent on staffing costs, including attendants, estates personnel and admin staff. A further £3 million is incurred in maintenance costs, such as lighting, gritting, cleaning and repairs. Finally, the ANPR contract costs approximately half a million pounds a year. Those costs will remain broadly constant whether the Act commences now or later.

I acknowledge that Members may wish to see the costs associated with the abolition of charges and its delay clearly set out and formally reported. I also acknowledge that the additional transparency may assist the Assembly in tracking expenditure and ensuring that the Department continues to make decisions that are based on the best available evidence. For those reasons, I am content to accept the amendment, although I highlight the fact that the costs to be reported are not expected to be significant.

When it comes to setting up the system, approximately £4·9 million has been spent to date to enable preparatory work for upgrading existing car park barriers and to support the procurement of the automatic number plate recognition equipment. There will also be ongoing running costs of up to half a million pounds a year, which will be offset by income from parking notices. That investment will not be wasted, because the infrastructure that has been installed is required for the long-term operation of hospital car parks and will directly support the implementation of free parking, once financial circumstances allow.

In summary, although, given the financial pressures, the deferral remains both necessary and justified, I support Members in their desire for any associated costs to be visible.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Nesbitt: Just in time.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you very much. I am often late. I appreciate the Minister setting out some of those financial issues. Given that the Executive will have been mindful of that, can you confirm this: did any Executive Minister dissent from or challenge your introduction of the Bill a number of weeks ago, if it was discussed at the Executive?

Mr Nesbitt: I do believe that the leader of the Opposition has asked me to disclose confidential information. I suggest that he puts in an FOI request for the minutes of the meeting in question.

In conclusion, I am content to accept the amendment.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Colin McGrath to make the winding-up speech on the amendment.

Mr McGrath: Thank you very much. I appreciate everybody's participation in the debate. I do not intend to take very long. We actually almost brought some harmony to the Chamber with the Minister's giving way to Diane Dodds and taking those points, and the leader of the Opposition's getting some exceptional powers as well in the middle of that. It has not been the worst debate.

Whilst I accept the points that people have made about this not being the biggest amount of money and the report's being very short, those are not the issues: the issue is that what was presented in the Bill originally was a bit of a disaster, and that what we are actually saying here, with the amendment, is that there should be full openness and transparency to the public in the face of that. That is taking responsibility. It is the Assembly's stepping up to the mark and saying, "Where we did not deliver what we promised, we will be open about how we go forward to be able to fix that". I appreciate that the Minister has said that he cannot detail whether there was any dissent. I heard that earlier in the debate on minimum unit pricing, and then we ended up pointing out exactly who it was who did and did not vote for it. However, I understand that that could be found out through the FOI process.

Another important thing is that the Bill to which this amendment is tabled, which is overturning a previous Act, has been heavily commented upon in the papers by journalists who have looked at it and said that it was not the best shining example of what we can do here. Therefore, by taking responsibility and saying that we have nothing to hide from that process and that we will detail where the costs are, what costs have been involved and what the delay is, and that we will produce that annually, we will hopefully move towards a scenario where, in better financial circumstances, as we move towards 2029, there might be an opportunity for us to be able to implement that full law.

Mr McGuigan: Will the Member give way?

Mr McGrath: Yes.

Mr McGuigan: The Member mentioned that journalists have asked questions, which they are entitled to do. However, the key point is that the original Act was passed by all the parties. I remember that, in the Second Stage debate, it was mentioned by some — I will not name the parties — that others had gone out and sold it on their social media. It would be wise for all parties to check through their social media, because that Act was sold by all parties, even those who are currently advocating something different. When it comes to the Bill, journalism and what is being reported, does the Member agree that the original Act was a good one with good intentions, that the issue needs to be legislated for and that this has nothing to do with the original Act; it is just delaying its implementation?

Mr McGrath: It is an amendment to a Bill that is overturning a previous Act that overturned an original Act. Sometimes, when we get into the conversation on that, it can be confusing. I did say in my remarks — I will read them again — that all parties supported the Act four years ago, and we have to own the consequences of that, which are that it was then found that the Executive could not deliver it because they could not afford it. Now they are saying that there could be a set of costs. I stand to be corrected, but I think that we are talking about £5 million of implementation costs to deliver something that is then being delayed. What we are saying here is let us have that annual openness, honesty and transparency to say, "Here are any costs that have been accrued in the past year in the non-delivery of this Act". That is us being mature, open, honest and transparent. I use the term "us", because, as I said, we all have to own the consequences of passing the Act. It was passed in a very unedifying way. As my colleague the leader of the Opposition has said, it was the last thing that we did before going out to an election, and the first thing that we did when we came back was overturn it. That is not a good look to the public. This is a method by which to try to address that and be more open and honest. I know that, underneath the chipping back and forward, we all agree with that. Hopefully, now, in a few seconds, the amendment can be made.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Mr McGrath. I am sure that you do not need my reminder that Members and, indeed, Ministers will be able to revisit other matters at Final Stage.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, that concludes the Consideration Stage of the Hospital Parking Charges Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker. Members should note that Further Consideration Stage has been provisionally scheduled for Tuesday 14 April. Taking account of Easter recess, the window for tabling amendments opens immediately on the conclusion of this item of business and will close at 4.30 pm on Thursday 26 March.

Members, please take your ease before we move to the next item in the Order Paper.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): No amendments have been tabled to the Bill. The Question on stand part will be put on each clause, followed by the Question on the long title.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): That concludes the Consideration Stage of the RHI (Closure of Non-Domestic Scheme) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

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

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

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

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Principal Deputy Speaker, I seek the Assembly's approval for the making of the set of draft regulations. They contain important further provisions relating to the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (HMRs) to support the ongoing supply and deployment of vaccinations across the United Kingdom.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, multiple temporary amendments were made to the HMRs in autumn 2020 to enable the roll-out of the COVID-19 and influenza vaccination programmes. The amendments were extended in 2022 and 2024 following public consultation, and they are due to lapse on 1 April 2026.

The instrument looks to retain several provisions in the regulations as permanent legislation and expand them to other vaccines. The aim is to build on the benefits that the amendments have provided to date, as well as wider lessons learned during the pandemic.

The COVID-19 and flu vaccination programmes are based on recommendations from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), which is an independent expert committee advising on all vaccination-related matters.

The programmes are a critical element in helping to protect the health of our population and reduce pressures on our health and care services. Vaccinations remain our best form of direct protection against flu and COVID-19.

I will now set out and explain the proposed amendments contained in the draft regulations that are before the Assembly, and explain why the provisions are still needed.

The HMRs are a set of UK laws that regulate the use of medicinal products for human use. They set out a comprehensive regime for the authorisation of products for the manufacture, import, distribution, sale and supply of the products, for their labelling, advertising and pharma co-vigilance.

The HMRs have a UK-wide territorial application, and they must be amended using powers set out in the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021. Subsequently, any statutory instruments (SIs) amending the HMRs on a UK-wide basis must also be made jointly and debated and approved via the draft affirmative procedure in both Houses of Parliament and here in the Northern Ireland Assembly.

The current proposal relates to provisions that were introduced to support COVID-19 and extend flu vaccination programmes, namely regulations 3A, 19(4A-4D), 247A and 233(8) and schedule 17(S17).

The purpose of the SI is to further amend the HMRs to continue to safeguard public health and ensure that lessons learned can be used to support the safe supply, distribution and administration of a wider group of vaccinations. That will help the ongoing development of a vaccination system that is fit for the future.

The proposed amendments will increase flexibility in the movement, preparation and labelling of vaccinations in defined circumstances, with appropriate safeguards. They will increase flexibility in the vaccinative workforce and enable community pharmacies to deliver a wider range of vaccinations off-site.

The overarching policy objective is to help safeguard public health in accordance with section 2(2) of the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021. It is designed to protect public health and to promote the safety of patients.

The provisions in regulations 3A, 19 and 247A of the HMRs proved vital to the success of the COVID-19 and flu vaccination programmes during the pandemic and enabled the continued safe and effective deployment of vaccines across the UK, helping to safeguard public safety.

The legislative provisions are, however, time-limited and have sunset provisions that will cause them to lapse on 1 April 2026.

Without the proposed amendments to the HMRs, COVID-19 and flu vaccination services will not be able to continue in their current form, while certain Health and Social Care (HSC) vaccination activities will need to cease. That will inevitably delay or even prevent those considered most at risk from those diseases from receiving their vaccinations, as is recommended by the JCVI.

Regulation 233(8) and regulation 3 of the HMRs and schedule 17 to the HMRs do not have the same time limitations attached. The legislative proposals, however, suggest ways in which to utilise the regulations further to ensure that the vaccine system is as effective as possible. It is proposed that regulations 3A, 19 and 233 of the HMRs be expanded in scope, and a new permanent legal mechanism, known as vaccine group directions, has been drafted. That will replace regulation 247A of the HMRs and include vaccinations against any infectious disease where vaccinations are currently limited to COVID-19 and flu.

Allowing regulations 3A(1) and (2) to lapse reflects the fact that we are no longer operating in a pandemic scenario and have instead moved to the more targeted approach of offering COVID-19 vaccination to those at greatest risk. Where necessary, any exceptional preparation or assembly will be satisfactorily covered by the amended regulation 3 and the existing regulation 4 of the HMRs.

Regulation 3A(3) and (4) permit holders of a wholesale dealer's licence who do not hold a manufacturer's licence to relabel COVID-19 vaccines to reflect changes in shelf life resulting from product thawing. The statutory instrument retains those provisions as permanent legislation and expands them to include any vaccine against an infectious disease. That will enable a more efficient use of a capable vaccinator workforce and support flexibilities in the supply chain.

Regulation 247A will be allowed to lapse on 1 April 2026, and the aforementioned new permanent legal mechanism, regulation 235A, which is being introduced by the SI, will ensure that the UK has the necessary agile and flexible workforce to deliver a wider range of nationally commissioned vaccination programmes, including in the event of a future potential public health emergency requiring rapid vaccine deployment.

In amending the regulations, we are seeking to maintain important safety measures while also increasing the effectiveness of the system's supply chain and workforce, including health visiting teams and community pharmacists, all of which will improve vaccination uptake. The occupational health vaccinator provisions in schedule 17 will also be expanded in scope, covering any vaccination that is supplied in the course of an occupational health scheme.

On 20 January 2026, following the completion of a UK-wide consultation, which my Department ensured was circulated to all relevant Northern Ireland stakeholders, the UK Government published a response to their joint consultation on the proposals to amend the HMRs to support the ongoing supply and deployment of vaccinations across the UK. There were 217 consultation responses received, six of which were from Northern Ireland. Overall, most of the responses received across the UK were supportive of the proposals outlined in the consultation, stating how the existing flexibilities in the regulations had been, and continue to be, useful in supporting access to vaccines and in ensuring that there is a sufficient vaccination workforce.

An overall broad level of support was expressed in Northern Ireland from the organisations here that participated in the consultation, while the responses from individuals who shared their professional and personal views and experiences were rather mixed. The personal views and experiences shared were of a more negative nature and were unsupportive of vaccines in general. Following the consultation, the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) in London laid the draft SI in Parliament on 29 January 2026. That was followed by a formal review and scrutiny of it by Parliament's Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. The draft SI was then debated in the House of Commons and the House of Lords earlier this month, before its coming into force date of 1 April 2026.

The regulations are being progressed at pace, given that the provisions for continued support of the COVID-19 and flu vaccination programmes in Northern Ireland also need to be in place by 1 April 2026. We know that that is a challenging timescale, but we would be extremely grateful for the Assembly's support in trying to meet it.

My Department has again accepted the latest advice of the JCVI to offer COVID-19 vaccination in the spring of this year to the following cohorts: all those aged 75 or over; all those living in care homes for older adults; and immunosuppressed individuals aged six months and over. Failure to meet the deadline could result in eligible individuals being delayed in taking up or unable to take up their COVID-19 vaccination, which would have major implications for the planned COVID-19 spring campaign in Northern Ireland. The campaign is scheduled to begin on 20 April and run until the end of June this year, which is a similar time frame to that of spring COVID-19 programmes in the rest of the UK.

We know that the vaccination programmes have more than proved their worth. It is therefore important that we continue to retain the flexibility and ability to deliver the programmes that the provisions have afforded us. Over 5,400,000 COVID-19 vaccine doses have been administered in Northern Ireland since the introduction of the vaccination programme in December 2020. During the 2025-26 autumn and winter COVID-19 programme, over 100,000 COVID-19 vaccinations were administered here, and at 11 March 2026, over 560,000 flu vaccinations had been administered in Northern Ireland as part of the 2025-26 winter campaign.

Given that almost 80% of flu and COVID-19 vaccines are co-administered during the autumn and winter campaigns, it is essential that we make the best use of the available workforce to ensure that the people considered most at risk continue to receive their vaccines on time. Safety is at the forefront of the COVID-19 and flu programmes. Important safeguards have been put in place to ensure that the flexibilities provided by the amendments do so safely and effectively. All COVID-19 and flu vaccinations, as well as other vaccines that are available as part of a national programme, are entirely voluntary. No one is forced to receive a vaccine.

My officials attended the Health Committee's meeting on 5 March this year to outline the policy intent of the draft SI and respond to any questions that the Committee raised. I am pleased to confirm that the Committee raised no issues on the content of the draft regulations, and it is with the Committee's support that I bring the SI before the wider Assembly today. I commend the motion to the Assembly.

Mr McGuigan (The Chairperson of the Committee for Health): I welcome the opportunity to outline the Committee for Health's consideration of the regulations. As the Minister said, the Committee supports the regulations.

The Human Medicines Regulations control the arrangements for the licensing, manufacturing and wholesale dealing, sale and supply of medicines for human use. As the Minister advised the House, the rule seeks to amend the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 by introducing permanent legislation where time-limited provisions that were made during the COVID-19 pandemic are due to lapse at the start of April, and by expanding the regulations relating to vaccine supply, distribution and administration to any vaccine against an infectious disease. I do not intend to rehearse the detail of the changes being made to the regulations, as the Minister has set that out already. Instead, I will limit my remarks on behalf of the Committee to its consideration of the proposed changes.

The Committee noted the proposal for the draft regulations at its meeting on 12 February. In line with the new scrutiny arrangements for delegated legislation, the Committee published the Department's SL1 papers. We issued a call for views on the proposed regulations, and we scheduled the attendance of officials at the Committee's meeting on 5 March. We received no responses to our call for evidence on the proposed regulations.

At the Committee meeting on 5 March, members had the opportunity to question officials about the regulations. Members asked about the consequences of the proposed amendments not being made by 1 April, and departmental officials advised that that would significantly reduce the available workforce and disrupt distribution, affecting the delivery of the COVID-19 and flu vaccination programmes. Members also asked how the Department is addressing public concerns and promoting public confidence with regard to vaccines. Officials advised the Committee that work is ongoing to better understand why people decline vaccines. They are also working to improve messaging to encourage vaccine uptake. Officials also advised that the future transition of the child health system to Encompass will enable streamlined recording and scheduling of appointments. Officials were asked about possible interruptions to medicine supply, and they advised the Committee that vaccines for flu, COVID-19 and other programmes are centrally procured and that no supply problems are expected.

At the conclusion of its consideration of the Department's SL1, the Committee agreed that it was content with the merits of the policy proposal and content for the Department to make the rule. The Committee then considered the laid statutory rule last Thursday, and I can confirm today that the Committee agreed that it would recommend that the regulations be approved by the Assembly.

Mr Donnelly: I also support the motion to approve the draft Human Medicines (Amendment) Regulations 2026. These regulations make a series of practical and sensible amendments to the Human Medicines Regulations 2012, with a clear purpose to support the safe supply, distribution and administration of vaccines across the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. In essence, this takes a number of temporary arrangements that were introduced during the pandemic and, where appropriate, places them on a permanent footing before those provisions expire at the end of the month. Importantly, it also updates the law so that these flexibilities are not limited and can apply more broadly to vaccines against infectious diseases where that is necessary and where appropriate safeguards are in place. That includes greater flexibility on how vaccines can be moved, prepared and labelled in defined circumstances, widening the pool of vaccinators who can safely support delivery and allowing community pharmacies to provide vaccinations off-site. Those changes should help to make vaccination programmes more accessible and more resilient, particularly during periods of heightened demand or public health pressure.

They may seem like generic technical changes now, but we have all experienced the uncertainty and impacts of a global pandemic, so we should know that, in practice, better access and a more responsive service to patients, especially during periods of pressure, is a step in the right direction. It represents the lessons learned from the pandemic and understanding the need to support our front-line professionals who deliver those programmes, making sure that patient safety and public health remain at the centre of our approach. For those reasons, I support the regulations.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: No other Members have indicated that they wish to speak. Minister, you are up next to make a winding-up speech on the motion.

Mr Nesbitt: Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, thank you very much. I thank the Chair and the Deputy Chair for their comments. I am sure that Members will agree that the COVID-19 vaccination campaigns in recent years have been a success. They have helped us to move out of the pandemic to live a more normal way of life. I firmly believe that these provisions are vital to help enable the delivery of vaccination campaigns. Therefore, I am pleased to commend the motion on the regulations to the Assembly.

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

Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): I beg to move

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

Dr Archibald: I seek the Assembly's approval for the Parental Bereavement Leave and Pay (Miscarriage) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2026. The regulations aim to support parents who suffer pregnancy loss through miscarriage. They build on the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Act passed by the Assembly in 2022. That legislation gave working parents the right to two weeks of paid leave following the death of a child under the age of 18 or a stillbirth after 24 weeks of pregnancy. That right was subject to a qualifying period of 26 weeks in continuous employment. From April 2026, the amount will be £194.32 per week or 90% of the employee's earnings, whichever is lower.

The intention of the legislation was to make it easier for parents to take time off to grieve and support each other during a really difficult time. As the then Chair of the Economy Committee, I included an amendment that required that right to be extended to parents bereaved through miscarriage. I also put forward an amendment that meant that parental bereavement pay and leave would become a day-1 right. As Economy Minister, I am proud now to give effect to those requirements.

The North of Ireland will be the first region in these islands and will lead in Europe in legislating for parental bereavement leave and pay in cases of miscarriage. It is estimated that over 9,000 employees per year are affected by a miscarriage experienced by them or their partner. Those people will now have the right to claim parental bereavement leave and pay.

Importantly, the policy and regulations require only a declaration of entitlement. Requiring parents to provide medical evidence at such a distressing time would be insensitive and would add an administrative burden to an already stretched health service. This compassionate approach aligns with the rights available under the existing parental bereavement leave and pay provisions. It should also be noted that the rights will be available to the employed partners of women who experience a miscarriage, whether they are the biological parents or intended parents, including those in surrogacy arrangements, and regardless of the partner's gender.

It is my intention that employees who experience miscarriage will have the same rights to parental bereavement leave and pay as are currently available to employed parents in cases of child death and stillbirth. The leave and pay entitlements may be taken at any point within the 56 weeks of the date of the miscarriage or the date on which the woman becomes aware of it. The entitlement may be taken as a single block of two weeks or as two separate blocks of one week. That flexibility recognises the fact that grief does not follow a fixed timetable.

As for how the right will be funded, small and medium employers can claim back 109% of what they pay out. That means that they are fully reimbursed and receive a small extra amount to cover their administrative costs. Larger employers can recover 92% of the payment, meaning that they cover only a small proportion. The system is the same as that used for other family-related statutory payments, so the process will be familiar and predictable for employers.

The extension of parental bereavement leave and pay to include miscarriage is estimated to cost a maximum of £3·5 million per annum. In addition, system changes to the HMRC statutory payments framework are estimated at £1·6 million. Those costs will be borne by my Department.

To support employers in providing the new right, my Department has worked with HMRC to provide update guides, calculators and forms to support decision-making and record-keeping obligations. The Labour Relations Agency is developing a comprehensive step-by-step presentation for employers that will offer guidance when introducing the new right or when circumstances require its application. Updates to nidirect and Invest NI web pages are forthcoming for both employees and employers to help them to navigate the process effectively. The enhancements also include improved pathways to signpost further support for parents who face such tragic situations.

I recognise the people who gave such compelling testimony when I was Chair of the Committee for the Economy as to why the rights in the 2022 Act should be extended to parents bereaved through miscarriage and who helped to shape this legislation. I also thank the Committee members who supported my amendments at the time — Stewart Dickson, Sinéad McLaughlin, Mike Nesbitt, Matthew O'Toole and John O'Dowd — and all the Assembly Members who voted for these amendments to be part of the legislation.

The policy underpinning the regulations was shared with the Committee for the Economy on 28 January 2026, and the regulations were formally introduced for scrutiny on 20 February. I am grateful to the Committee and the Examiner of Statutory Rules for their careful consideration and engagement.

The change to make parental bereavement leave and pay a day-1 right will be enacted by separate regulations to be made under the confirmatory process, with all the changes taking effect together for new cases on 6 April.

These regulations introduce miscarriage as a new ground of entitlement for parental bereavement leave and pay, ensure parity with existing entitlements for child death and stillbirth and embed compassion, dignity and flexibility at a time of profound loss.

I commend the regulations to the Assembly for approval.

Mr Brett (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Economy): I recommend support for the regulations.

As the Minister indicated, the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 introduced a statutory entitlement to 10 days of parental bereavement leave, together with statutory payment, for eligible working parents who experienced a stillbirth from the twenty-fourth week of pregnancy or the death of a child up to their eighteenth birthday. Those entitlements do not presently extend to those who experience a miscarriage up to the end of the twenty-third week of pregnancy.

In 2022, the Department consulted on a day-1 right to miscarriage leave and pay to cover those circumstances. The rule was considered by the Committee in January 2026. We issued a call for views. There were a small number of queries, to which the Department kindly responded with clarifications. Those were around leave flexibility and the right of parents.

The Committee was unanimous in its support for the positive measures, which put Northern Ireland ahead of most other jurisdictions on these islands in recognising the needs of parents in the most difficult of situations. To that end, the Committee agreed just last week to endorse the making of supporting technical statutory rules and agreed to set aside our usual process for delegated legislation on this occasion, given the importance of the matter. I am therefore pleased to commend the rule on behalf of the Committee to the House.

As DUP economic spokesperson, I want to make a couple of comments. First, I pay tribute to the Member for Upper Bann, the former Minister for the Economy, Mrs Dodds, who brought the first legislation to the House, and to Mr Lyons, who brought it through as Minister. I also pay tribute to the current Minister, Dr Archibald, for her work during her time as Committee Chair. The Minister and I often disagree on policy matters, but, on this, I thank the Minister for her personal commitment. Since taking office as Minister for the Economy, she has made it a top priority to ensure these regulations, and it would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to the Minister for her work and dedication.

Mr Durkan: I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important issue. From April, workers in Northern Ireland who experience miscarriage will be entitled to statutory leave and pay, and that is a significant and overdue step forward. For too long, pregnancy loss before 24 weeks has not been recognised properly in our employment law. Many women and their partners have had to rely on sick leave, annual leave or simply the goodwill of their employer at one of the most traumatic moments of their lives. That was never acceptable.

The new regulations will provide two weeks of statutory miscarriage leave and pay, available to both the woman who experienced the loss and her partner. It will be a day-1 right, meaning that workers will not need any minimum length of service to qualify, and the leave can be taken flexibly in the first year after the loss. Just as important is the fact that employees will not be required to provide intrusive medical evidence. They will be able to self-declare, which recognises the deeply personal nature of pregnancy loss.

The changes matter, because miscarriage is not an illness but a bereavement and our laws should reflect that reality. People in the House have suffered pregnancy loss. It is far more common than people realise, yet it is still surrounded by silence. When the law fails to recognise that loss, it adds to the sense that that grief must be hidden, that people should return to work before they are ready and that their pain is something to be managed privately rather than supported publicly. That is why the change is so important: it sends the message that compassion has a place in our workplace law and that the health, well-being and dignity of our workers matter.

We should also be honest: this must not be the end of the conversation. We need to ensure that the rights are properly implemented; we need to ensure that employers fully understand and adhere to their responsibilities; and we need to continue building family-friendly workplaces that recognise the realities of modern life, particularly for women. Too often, women still carry the burden when it comes to pregnancy, childcare, caring responsibilities and loss. If we are serious about equality in the workplace, we must make sure that our employment law reflects the real experiences of working people.

Today's change is a positive step. I echo the words of the Chair of the Committee in commending the Minister for her commitment to progressing it and previous Ministers who certainly did their bit to get it this far. It shows what can be achieved when we listen to those who speak openly about their loss and campaign for change. The SDLP supports the new rights and will continue to press for a workplace culture that is fair, compassionate and rooted in dignity for everyone.

Miss Dolan: I welcome and commend the Economy Minister's confirmation of paid miscarriage leave for parents. It is not simply a policy change; it is a recognition of something deeply human. It acknowledges a loss that has too often gone unseen, unspoken and unsupported. The provision of statutory miscarriage leave and pay is a welcome extension of workplace rights for parents at a time when they have experienced heartbreaking loss.

Miscarriage is not rare. It touches countless families — partners, mothers and fathers — yet, for generations, it has been wrapped in silence. The charity Sands estimates that about one in five pregnancies ends in miscarriage. For too long, people have been expected to carry on, to return to work and to function as though nothing has happened, all while grieving a profound and personal loss. That expectation was never fair or compassionate. Today, we take a meaningful step towards changing that.

The provision will ensure that parents who experience miscarriage are afforded the same protections as those who lose a child under the age of 18 or who experience stillbirth. Eligibility and accessibility are key to making that a reality. The inclusion of provision for self-declaration, entitlement from the first day of employment and a 56-day window in which to take the leave ensures that there are no unnecessary barriers to accessing the support.

It is no surprise that the introduction of a measure such as this received overwhelming support in the consultation, with 95% of respondents agreeing that parental bereavement leave should be extended in this way. That reflects a clear and shared understanding across society that more must be done to support those experiencing loss.

The provision sends the clear message that grief deserves space, healing takes time, and no one should have to choose between their livelihood and their loss. For many, it will mean the difference between suffering in silence and being given more time and respect to process what they are going through. It will mean that employers are guided by empathy as well as policy.

We should recognise the courage of those who have shared their stories, often at great personal cost, to bring us to this point. Their voices have helped us to break down stigma and have driven real, tangible change. Like the baby loss certificate scheme, these regulations are rooted in compassion and will have a meaningful impact on people in our communities.

Today, we take an important step forward — a step rooted in kindness and respect and that reflects the kind of society that we all want to build. I welcome the measure — I commend the Minister — and support it wholeheartedly. I hope that it brings some comfort to those who need it most.

Ms Nicholl: I welcome these very important regulations. So many people have been impacted on by the issue, including close colleagues of mine. It is therefore very important. To be forced to take sick leave, annual leave or unpaid leave is wrong. Mark Durkan is right to say that it is a bereavement not an illness. From speaking to numerous people, I know just how degrading it feels for them to go through such an awful experience and then have to get a sick note, as if that were something that they should be considering at that time. The compassionate aspect is therefore important. The right to extend that leave to partners, thus ensuring wrap-around provision, is very welcome. A lot of employers are already very good in the space, and that is to be welcomed and encouraged, but the regulations provide a floor — an important minimum standard — for those who are in work. It is important that it be a day-1 right.

I thank the Minister and all the other reps involved. I especially thank the officials who came to the Committee: Colin, Geraldine, Joseph and others. Whenever they appeared before the Committee, they were able to answer questions with such clarity. They were really across the brief and obviously passionate about the issue, so I pay tribute to them.

The regulations are a really positive step for the Assembly, creating a more understanding and compassionate working environment for people at a time of real distress. They provide dignity for people at a time when they need it. The Alliance Party therefore supports the regulations. I thank everyone who got them to this stage.

Ms D Armstrong: I join my Committee colleagues in welcoming the legislation and thank the Minister for her work to bring the regulations to this point. I extend my thanks to the officials involved, echoing the words that have gone before.

Parental bereavement is a time of extreme vulnerability, and it is good that that is recognised in the legislation. The Assembly has a duty of care to those who experience bereavement and a responsibility to ensure that we legislate with dignity and compassion in order to lift all the barriers they faced during some of the most difficult and emotional periods of their lives.

As my Committee colleagues have outlined, the regulations fulfil a long-overdue duty of the Assembly to extend the rights under parental bereavement legislation to workers who have experienced a miscarriage, alongside some of those at home with them, who are the most closely affected. It is only right that the protections that are currently available to those who experience the death of a child or a stillbirth be extended to women who suffer a miscarriage, and it is crucial that that support be offered from day 1. The regulations will also fulfil our duty to acknowledge the lived experience of parents who experience miscarriage. The previous rules, which recognised parental bereavement only from 24 weeks of pregnancy onwards, meant that those who experienced loss before that point went unrecognised in employment rights. The regulations close that gap and ensure that those who suffer miscarriage have an entitlement to time off amid their grief.

I welcome the statutory entitlement to paid leave for eligible workers. Having that right established from day 1 of employment does a great deal to reduce the stress and anxiety of those who are already undergoing an extremely traumatic period in their lives. Embedding miscarriage leave and pay formalises and standardises the compassionate approach taken to parental bereavement and ensures that there is clear support and a procedure for those who are affected by miscarriage. That means that parents do not have to go through the worry of financial insecurity amid their emotional hardship.

The legislation provides clarity, for workers and employers alike, that well-being must be prioritised. For all the reasons that I have given, I am happy to support the regulations.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister, no other Members have indicated that they wish to speak, so I call you to make a winding-up speech on the motion.

Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I thank everybody who contributed to the debate for their support for the regulations.

As I set out earlier, the regulations introduce a new entitlement for employees who are parents who have been bereaved through miscarriage by providing them with the right to take up to two weeks of bereavement leave from work, alongside an entitlement to a statutory payment. The policy objective is to establish a clear framework and a minimum standard of support for employed bereaved parents who tragically experience a miscarriage before 24 weeks. In doing so, the regulations recognise the profound impact of pregnancy loss and ensure that no parent will face that experience without at least a baseline of workplace support.

I thank the Committee for its consideration of the regulations and the other accompanying regulations, and for the support that has been expressed in the Chamber. I also acknowledge the work of Mrs Dodds and Minister Lyons in progressing the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Act in the previous mandate. I recognise all those who contributed to the consultation in the previous mandate, and to the recent consultation, in order to help to shape the legislation. I acknowledge the work of the organisations that support people who face pregnancy loss, and which have supported my Department in bringing forward the legislation.

I will touch on some of the comments that have been made in the debate. I reassure Mr Durkan that, if employees experience any non-compliance from employers, they will have the opportunity to progress through the normal recourse. I agree with Ms Nicholl: many employers already do really good work in this space and are very supportive through the provision of the necessary leave and pay. We want to put in place a floor — a minimum standard that is expected. Finally, I acknowledge the work of officials who have been working on this for as long as I have, and who have very diligently supported me and the Committee in bringing forward the regulations.

Importantly, the measures are intended to complement and encourage supportive workplace practices. Some employers already offer paid time off for miscarriage. They will now be able to benefit from financial reimbursement from HMRC. The guidance provided by my Department will help to reinforce good practice. The regulations mark an important and overdue recognition that pregnancy loss through miscarriage is a bereavement, and one that requires understanding and support in the workplace. It is my hope that, through these provisions, thousands of eligible employed parents who suffer the loss of a child through miscarriage will be able to access meaningful support at a time when they need it most. The unanimous support that has been expressed in the Chamber today is a really positive message. It shows the good that we can collectively achieve in the Assembly.

Ms Nicholl: I beg to move

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

Kate, please open the debate on the motion.

Ms Nicholl: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. The motion is about an important topic that affects every household in Northern Ireland — energy security — and how increasing our use of renewable energy can protect us from rising costs, global instability and climate harm. We will hear arguments about why we should stick with fossil fuels, but that would leave us permanently tied to international markets that are unstable and extremely volatile. Think about what has happened in the past few years, with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Gulf War and what is now happening in Iran. Those events have sent energy prices soaring, and we have been left to absorb the cost. Focusing on fossil fuels is not only economically and environmentally illiterate but makes us less secure. Greater security, cheaper bills, cleaner water and cleaner air are what the motion is about. It is about increased development in renewables.

On security and control, a January 2026 report from Chatham House made it clear that the most important source of energy insecurity in Europe is the fact that countries are highly dependent on fossil fuels. In an increasingly fractured world, where the whim of Donald Trump can raise prices overnight, we need to take more control over our energy supply. We are price takers, not price makers, and that needs to change. It means that we simply accept whatever the global market decides.

Rising energy bills are not a new phenomenon, but we cannot keep rolling from crisis to crisis. Consumers and businesses are being hit with rising energy prices, but there is almost nothing that we can do about the cost. We just have to deliver more schemes through which we can try to get help to the people who need it most, but that is not a long-term solution.

The Climate Change Committee (CCC) has found that one fossil fuel price shock could cost the UK more than the entire additional cost of the transition to net zero, based on the energy-related costs of fossil fuel shocks that followed Russia's invasion of Ukraine. A shift to renewables could also act as a catalyst for further investment. CCC analysis also shows that every pound that is spent on net zero brings 2·2 to 4·1 times its value in benefits. That investment in our communities is what we should be striving for. Lower energy bills are good not just for consumers but for businesses. They would make Northern Ireland a more attractive place to invest, do business and live.

One of the real issues that we have is the pace of change and how slow it has been. The Audit Office was clear in its condemnation of the failures of DFE to deliver on the energy strategy. The Department for Infrastructure also has to step up. The electrification of our transport is essential if we are to cut emissions and reduce our reliance on polluting fossil fuels. We need many things to make the transition work: North/South interconnection; east-west interconnection with Great Britain; stronger grids; better market integration; better long-term storage; a more concerted effort on interconnection; an increase in our grid capacity; and the delivery of the renewable energy price guarantee.

We are behind on our renewable targets, but that is not an excuse to give up. We should not give up; we should speed up. Falling short should be a wake-up call, not a surrender. We need to do much more in that space.

Fossil fuels are also seriously damaging our environment. Sometimes, people view the focus on renewable energy as some kind of leftist, woke idea about something that it would be nice to have. We are talking about having cleaner air and cleaner water. That is something that we all want. It is also about reducing the cost of energy, and that is definitely something that we all want. Seriously ramping up our ability to produce and use renewables is the only viable way of breaking free from the chaos and volatility of globally traded fossil fuels.

We have a choice: continue to live in fear of global markets spiralling out of control, with our hands tied behind our back; or get serious about renewables, grasp control of our energy supply and break free of the Wild West of internationally traded fossil fuels. The motion is about greater security, cheaper bills, cleaner air and a stronger economy. That is what a renewables future offers Northern Ireland.

Mr Brett: I beg to move amendment No 1:

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Phillip, you have 10 minutes to propose amendment No 1 and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. Please open the debate on amendment No 1.

Mr Brett: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. On the eve of recess, a discussion about energy policy may not interest everyone, but it is a really important issue. I thank Mr Honeyford and Ms Nicholl for the debate.

For me and my party, there are three key issues at the heart of the debate: the security of energy supply; the cost of energy not just for households but for businesses; and, unfortunately, the obsession with net zero among some parties in the Chamber, regardless of the cost, regardless of the impact and, more importantly, regardless of the facts. However, let us start with some positivity from me. I agree with quite a bit of what is in the Alliance Party motion. First, the North/South interconnector is a vital infrastructure project that will be vital to the energy security not just of Northern Ireland but of this island, and it will be vital in ensuring that we continue to try to drive down prices. Therefore, I support its inclusion in the motion. I recognise, as Ms Nicholl outlined, the need for us to get on with our grid connectivity and grid connection policy.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he recognise, as I do, that, with regard to the North/South interconnector, Sinn Féin talks out of both sides of its mouth? Up in Northern Ireland, it has one policy, but, down in the Republic, it has another. It is about time that Sinn Féin got its act together with regard to the North/South interconnector.

Mr Brett: I do not think that it will be lost on the people watching the debate that, on this important issue, Sinn Féin has a partitionist policy, and that it is actually the DUP that is pushing forward all-island collaboration.

When it comes to long-term storage, as Ms Nicholl articulated, we need to see a policy decision made by the Department so that planning permissions can be submitted and granted. Unfortunately, that is where my agreement with the proposer of the motion ends. She mentioned that she supports another east-west interconnector, but, tellingly, that did not make it into the motion that is before us today. It is not just me who has highlighted the importance of a further east-west interconnector. Just last week, the Utility Regulator, when giving evidence to our Committee, made clear that, from his perspective, if we are to move anywhere near to meeting our targets in 2050, and to ensure further security of supply, we will need that additional interconnector. That is why the amendment from me and my party colleagues makes that point.

There is also nothing in the motion that addresses the important issue of the dispatch down rate here in Northern Ireland. Just two weeks ago, officials from the energy division in the Department for the Economy made clear that dispatch down rates are nearly hitting 30%. For those who do not know the technical term "dispatch down", that is when renewable energy is produced but has to be released into the atmosphere because we are unable to fully utilise it. Currently, we are in a scenario where 30% of wind renewable energy produced here in Northern Ireland is unable to be used by the network or by consumers and is simply being released into the atmosphere. That is why we need to ensure that we have a proper policy in place to address those issues. The Minister might articulate some of the work that she has started with the dispatch down group in her Department that meets on a weekly basis to try to improve those issues.

I also want to focus on the fact that it is not just the DUP that is saying that the targets set for 2030 will not be met. There is a growing body of evidence from those outside the political chambers making that point. Just last week, the Utility Regulator, when questioned by me, made clear that the 2030 targets will not be met. Does that mean that the condemnation in the Alliance Party motion of those who recognise that we will not meet the 2030 targets includes the Utility Regulator? Just last month, the chief executive of Northern Ireland Electricity made clear that, in his view, we will not meet the 2030 targets.

Ms Nicholl: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brett: I will in one second.

Does that mean that the motion condemns Northern Ireland Electricity Networks? I will happily give way to the Member.

Ms Nicholl: Mr Brett is always generous in giving way. Does he agree that not meeting the targets does not mean that you just give up? We still need to be ambitious and try to get there. You do not just stop if you are falling slow; you need to speed up to get there.

Mr Brett: I agree 100%. I want to put all my efforts and for our party to put all its efforts into meeting them. However, at some point, Ms Nicholl, we need to stop gaslighting the public. All that we are doing by getting up here and saying nice words about the targets being met is lying to the public. Professionals who operate on that network daily are saying that we will not meet the targets. Standing up in the Chamber and pretending otherwise is, frankly, nonsense. When we get to 2030 and have not met them, what will we say to people?

Every day that we are in the Chamber, people condemn the Executive and Assembly for saying one thing and doing the complete opposite. The facts are clear. Whether I like it or not and whether you like it or not, we will not meet the 2030 targets, so let us be honest about that with the public. Otherwise, why would people have faith in these institutions when politicians read out scripted remarks claiming that we will reach those targets when, in fact, professionals who operate in the sector daily say that we will not meet them?

That does not mean that we give up and do not do everything that we can. That is why the Minister has my support in producing the renewable energy price guarantee scheme. It will be vital in attracting the investment that Ms Nicholl set out. That is why the Minister has my support in developing the North/South interconnector, trying to address the issue of dispatch down and developing an interconnection policy so that we can deliver not just the North/South interconnector but an additional east-west one that we need and that will benefit all our businesses.

Our amendment is reasonable. I have not heard why the Alliance Party will not support it. Ms Nicholl said that, by focusing completely on fossil fuels, we were being economically illiterate. We make clear in our amendment that there needs to be:

Just because Members may not like the use of fossil fuels, that does not take away the essential nature of them. If we were to stop any use of fossil fuels, Northern Ireland would be in a blackout tomorrow. Was it not the Alliance Party that just yesterday called for energy support for customers who use oil? The last time I checked, oil is a fossil fuel. Perhaps, Alliance policy has changed from what it was yesterday, which was that the UK Government should fund fossil fuel support through oil for householders. Today, the party will not support it.

Ms Mulholland: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brett: I will happily give way.

Ms Mulholland: There is a big difference between asking for support for people who are heavily reliant on something that we do not want to see continue and needing to move away from it. It is a bit disingenuous to say that we have changed our position and are supporting oil just because we are asking for help right now.

Mr Brett: I say this to the Member for North Antrim: what is disingenuous is getting up here and saying that fossil fuels are terrible, we need to end their use tomorrow and we must have all our energy from renewables and then rejecting an amendment that makes it clear that we need to continue support due to the vital nature of fossil fuels and for those who are most in need.

By pursuing our current policies, Northern Ireland has the highest energy prices for businesses anywhere in Europe. That is impacting not just on my constituents but on Ms Mulholland's constituents in North Antrim. It is the result of the funding that we are ploughing into projects that have ultimately made no difference in achieving those targets. The Audit Office report makes it clear that the legislation and work that has been done to date have made no tangible impact on that. I want to play my part in transitioning to net zero, but getting up here every week, gaslighting the public and pretending that we will meet targets in 2030 while inflicting economic vandalism on the people of Northern Ireland is a ridiculous position to be in.

We have an opportunity to support an amendment that recognises the importance of continuing the use of fossil fuels while continuing to ensure that we play our role in transitioning towards net zero. The public deserve honesty from their politicians. Today, they have the opportunity to get it.

Mr Gildernew: I beg to move amendment No 2:

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Colm. You will have 10 minutes in which to propose amendment No 2 and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. Incidentally, all other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes.

Colm, please open the debate on amendment No 2.

Mr Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

While the DUP was in Washington, cosying up to Donald Trump and his cronies, the US military, along with Israel, continued its relentless bombing campaign in Iran. That war, which has killed thousands of innocent civilians, including girls who were going to school, is a clear violation of international law and has been widely condemned by the United Nations and the international community, yet, once again, the DUP finds itself on the wrong side of history, acting as a cheerleader for imperialist wars.

Not only have the illegal and unwarranted US and Israeli attacks on Iran caused untold devastation and destruction to innocent civilians, they have disrupted the global supply of energy. As a result of those attacks, millions of families and businesses around the world face huge spikes in their household bills, including many households in the North. As we know, the North relies heavily on home heating oil. The latest statistics show that prices have more than doubled since the start of that illegal war. That is having a devastating impact on families, many of whom are struggling to pay their bills. Those families need support, and they need it now.

During the cost-of-living crisis, when we last saw price hikes of such magnitude, the British Government stepped in with a significant amount of funding, which the Executive used to support the least well-off. The British Government's decision to allocate only £17 million to the North this time is shamefully inadequate. They need to step up to the plate and provide substantially more funding that is meaningful.

That said, we need to ensure that the £17 million that is currently at the Executive's disposal gets out the door and into the pockets of those who need it most as quickly as possible. Despite the attempts of the Minister for Communities to dodge his responsibilities in that matter, the job of getting that funding out the door clearly lies with him. At the time of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, former Communities Minister Deirdre Hargey came forward with an energy payment support scheme that delivered a one-off payment of £200 to those most in need. The Department for Communities recently published the warm healthy homes strategy, which has an entire section dedicated to protecting consumers from high energy costs. The Minister needs to urgently come forward with a plan to get that funding out to the families who are most in need of it. Those families do not have the luxury of waiting any longer for support.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gildernew: I am coming to the end of my remarks.

Any further delays will be catastrophic. The Minister for Communities must make it an urgent priority without any further delay.

Ms D Armstrong: I thank the Members for tabling the motion and the amendments and for the opportunity to speak on the motion. It reflects an issue that has affected households across Northern Ireland since the outbreak of the conflict in Iran.

My party and I share the proposer's deep concern about rising energy prices and their impact on families and businesses. From Fermanagh to Belfast, households that were already under immense financial pressure now face escalating costs for home heating oil and fuel. Those increases are already being passed on to consumers. While we hope for a resolution to the conflict that will ease prices, that price relief will not come quickly.

With almost two thirds of homes here relying on oil heating, Northern Ireland's overexposure to global energy markets has rarely been starker. Prices for oil, an unregulated fuel, continue to rise sharply, leaving many homeowners anxious and asking when it will end. International events that are well beyond our control dictate the cost of heating our homes and keeping the lights on. That vulnerability must be addressed. The Ulster Unionist Party has long argued that home heating oil should fall within the remit of the Utility Regulator, which would bring parity with gas and electricity. We welcome the warm healthy homes strategy for 2026-2036 and its £150 million investment in energy efficiency.

We strongly support increased renewable energy generation, but renewables alone cannot deliver the energy security that Northern Ireland needs, particularly in the short term. Recent figures show that progress on renewables is slipping.

In the 12 months to September 2025, renewables generated 44·2% of electricity, representing a 0·3% drop on the previous year. That was the third consecutive decline in renewable energy generation, far from the 80% target that was set for 2030.

Although the renewable electricity price guarantee is a positive step, planning delays and grid constraints mean that targets remain unlikely to be met on schedule. The Audit Office has also highlighted limited progress and weak oversight. Of the 8,000 GW per hour energy-saving target for 2030, only 90 GW per hour — just 1% — had been achieved by March 2025. How can renewables be described as the clearest pathway when statutory milestones are repeatedly being missed? A strategy that is centred on renewables cannot claim to enhance energy security if it fails to hit its own targets.

Having considered the motion and the wider context, it is clear to me that Mr Brett and Ms Forsythe's amendment presents the most realistic approach. Renewable energy must be paired with a dependable supply of fossil fuels. Renewables alone do not guarantee lower prices. Costs are still shaped by grid capacity and by our ability to use the energy that is produced. That is why strong east-west and North/South interconnection is essential. Interconnectors enable us to stabilise supply and unlock the energy potential of these islands. A problem shared is indeed a problem halved, and the British Isles can become a self-sufficient energy powerhouse.

In simple terms, Northern Ireland must be ambitious in its pursuit of energy security but realistic about what is deliverable. The motion overlooks the essential role that fossil fuels still play in maintaining that security and advocates a renewables-only approach without having the evidence to support it. For that reason, we cannot support the motion.

Mr Durkan: The motion speaks to major and ever-growing issues that people are facing across the North, which are the cost of energy, security of supply and the reality that too many households remain exposed when there is instability in other parts of the world. The conflict in the Middle East has, once again, shown just how vulnerable we are. When global prices rise, families feel it in their heating bills, businesses feel it in their overheads and those who are already struggling with the cost of living are pushed even further. That matters even more here, because Northern Ireland starts from a weaker position than most. We already have the highest levels of fuel poverty anywhere in the UK, so price increases hit harder and last longer.

In my constituency of Foyle, the vulnerability is very clear. At the time of the 2021 census, 54% of occupied households in the Derry City and Strabane District Council area relied on oil-only central heating, while only around 7% had any form of renewable energy system. That tells us how exposed many families still are to fossil fuel prices. When the cost of heating oil rises, people in Derry — people everywhere — feel it immediately, and, for many, there is absolutely no alternative. That situation is not inevitable. Rather, it is the result of slow progress and of a failure to build an energy system that can withstand shocks.

Our dependence on imported fossil fuels leaves us exposed to decisions that are taken far beyond these islands. We saw that after the invasion of Ukraine, and we are seeing and feeling it again now. Each time, the pattern repeats itself. Prices rise, support is rushed together and long-term decisions are delayed once the crisis passes. If we want to protect households and businesses, that cycle has to end. We need to produce more of our own energy and build a system that is modern, resilient and properly connected. Northern Ireland has the natural resources to do that. We have strong wind potential, an all-island electricity market and a unique position between the British and European energy systems. Those advantages should make us more secure, but, too often, progress has been too slow. Infrastructure has not kept pace, investment has stalled and key projects have been delayed.

Stronger cooperation across this island and across these islands must be part of the solution. The all-island electricity market already improves efficiency and security of supply. Building on that through having better grid connections and shared infrastructure is one of the most practical ways in which to lower costs. That is why the continued delay around the North/South interconnector makes no sense. It is difficult to argue for cheaper energy while failing to deliver the infrastructure needed to deliver it.

We also need to modernise the grid. Renewable energy is sometimes wasted, because the system cannot carry it. That is known as dispatch down, as I have learnt today, and it drives up costs for consumers. We therefore need to escalate and accelerate initiatives to capture and use that energy for the benefit of people here. A more diverse energy mix, including offshore wind, bioenergy storage and new technologies, would make the system more resilient and less exposed to global price shocks.

The DUP amendment suggests that renewable targets are being pursued in isolation and calls for continued reliance on fossil fuels alongside renewables. That gets the problem the wrong way round. Households are exposed to price shocks because we have stayed dependent on fossil fuels for too long, not because we have moved too quickly towards renewables.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he realise that, even if we had 100% wind energy, we would still need a power plant fuelled by coal, oil or gas to keep stability in our system?

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

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for his intervention. I am not naive to the reality that he outlined, but that reality should not temper our ambition to pursue the delivery of more renewable energy. I have outlined well, as have other Members, why we need to get there. I recognise that the DUP amendment does not dismiss that.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way again?

Mr Durkan: I will not have time, I am afraid, but thanks for your previous intervention.

Every time that there is a crisis somewhere in the world, bills rise, because our system is still tied to global fuel markets.

On the Sinn Féin amendment, we absolutely understand the urgency with which we need to get support out to people who desperately need it, but that underlines the need for us to move away from fossil fuels. I am no defender of Minister Lyons, but it is unedifying to hear Executive parties and Ministers arguing about who should get the help out. People do not care; they just need the help. Stop passing the buck, and start passing the bucks.

Of course, any transition must be managed carefully, and security of supply matters, but slowing the move away from fossil fuels will not protect consumers; it will keep them exposed. The Audit Office has highlighted serious flaws in the delivery of the energy strategy, as Members have said. What is needed now is a clear plan from the Minister for the Economy to reduce dependency on fossil fuels, increase renewable generation, upgrade infrastructure and make sure that the benefits of the transition are felt by the people who are struggling to pay their bills. If we continue to delay, households across the North will keep paying the price.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Mark.

Mr Durkan: Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Delargy: What we are seeing globally, particularly in the Middle East, is a reminder of just how susceptible we are to shifting energy prices. The past few weeks have shown once again how quickly global instability feeds into energy costs rising here. The war was celebrated by some in the House who continue to champion militarisation, but they are now backtracking due to the impact that the war is having on ordinary people and households.

When prices rise internationally, the impact is felt straight away in homes and businesses here. That underlines why renewable energy matters. Growing our renewable energy capabilities is, first and foremost, about climate and protecting our environment, but it is also about security and stability. All parties in the Executive signed up to the climate action plan, and it is imperative that all parties work together to ensure that its targets are met through coordination and determination. It is about building a system that is more secure, more stable and less exposed to external shocks.

There is also a clear opportunity for us to build cooperation across Ireland. The single electricity market has shown the benefits of working together, but there is a need to go further. We can do more on an all-Ireland basis to recognise the scale of opportunity in front of us, particularly when it comes to renewable energy such as offshore wind. The Minister has been a key proponent of that and is driving the conversation.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mr Delargy: No, thank you.

We have significant natural resources all around the coast of Ireland, and, if they are properly developed in a coordinated way, they can play a major role in reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and strengthening our long-term energy security. That kind of cooperation also creates the conditions for investment that supports infrastructure and helps to ensure that we make the most of what is available to us. What an opportunity that is to be a world leader in renewables and utilising what, let us face it, can be a climate that we do not usually get to boast about.

While we look to the future, many people are struggling in the present. Fuel poverty is a real issue in households across the North, and the pressure of rising costs is being felt across our society. People need support now amid rising oil and gas prices. That is why the Minister for Communities must move quickly to ensure that financial help reaches those who most need it. When we talk about fuel prices and about energy, it is not a theoretical concept; it is the lived reality for the worst off in our society, and it has plunged many people more deeply into poverty, putting many working families at risk of experiencing poverty and of choosing between food and heat.

When I talk to my friends and to people of my age, I hear that many people are unable to buy homes and many are unable to rent homes. Now, an increasing number are unable to heat their homes and have spent their entire adult and working lives knowing nothing but living from pay cheque to pay cheque. That is not a society or a way of life that we can accept, and we have the opportunity today to send a unified message from the House to the British Government that our communities require urgent and proper support. Reducing the fuel levy would provide some immediate relief to households and businesses that are dealing with high and rising costs every day. That is a practical step that could make a real difference in the short term.

We need to address both the long-term and the immediate energy-supply issues, building for the future, including making the most of all-Ireland renewable opportunities while supporting people through the pressures that they face today. That is the balance that needs to be struck.

Mr Frew: There has been nothing over the years more frustrating for me than this subject, on which so many politicians reach for zealot status with regard to goals and percentages that they wish to see on renewable energy. They are zealots without the wisdom or know-how to help the people and householders of Northern Ireland. It is not good enough to suggest that we want to have 80% or 100% and to try to reach that without knowing the real-life consequences that you are placing on householders in this country. That is what I have been listening to in frustration for years on the subject.

We all would like to see more wind energy, but, if you simply call for a rise in the percentage when 30% of what is generated goes up in the air, what is the point? You need better technology to support the renewable energies that we already generate. More than anything, we need the mix to be right. It is the mix that will protect our people from global pressures and from complicated systems and markets that fleece our people. We will have people in here cheerleading those same markets and those same complicated systems to the point where they do not realise what they do.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes, I will.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member accept that consumer choice, ultimately, will lead to reduced bills?

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

Mr Frew: Yes, I agree with the Member, as long as consumers have a choice. We are building houses without chimneys and leaving a monopoly in which householders will not be able to choose how they heat their home. That is an issue that we will have to grapple with. When people call —

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: I will make progress.

When people call for more wind, they should realise that that wind costs the same unit price of generation as a power plant, but we pay additional costs through capacity payments for its being there. We also pay constraint charges, which are not a charge but a payment to the wind farm companies for having to be turned off.

That is why our people are being fleeced. To have 30% of that go up in the air — how bad is that? How detrimental is that to our people? We need to get technologies that will actually work and embrace and capture the generation that we produce through wind and solar.

We also need greater interconnection, but here is the rub, folks: if we get further interconnection with the Republic of Ireland, GB, France, Belgium, Spain and Germany, that will be a mix of energy, including nuclear, coal and gas. Yet you do not want to know that or to listen to that, because you are zealots when it comes to renewable energy, and that is really taxing. We have Sinn Féin, which says that it wants a greater all-island approach to this, but we have an integrated single electricity market (I-SEM) that does not really work for our people, yet it cannot make up its mind on the North/South interconnector. Do not get me wrong: I think that the prices and benefits of the North/South interconnector are inflated — I really do — but we still need it for that interconnection, just in the same way that we need greater interconnection with GB.

We have to worry about the fragility of wind. The reason that we need a plant — we will always need a plant — is because when the system operator — in our case, SONI — worries about energy generation on a half-hourly basis, it not only worries about security of supply but it worries about quality of supply. What I mean by that is that, with energy, there is a frequency, and that is hertz, and if that frequency drops below a certain level or rises above a certain level, fuses start to blow and damage can be done. I can tell you now that wind energy is the most fragile when it comes to that sort of thing, so you will always need a base unit to cope with the amount of energy that we can produce through wind, solar and any other renewable technology that we want to employ.

We need to do more. We should do more. We need a greater mix, but to appeal for a headlong rush to a greater percentage of wind alone will just not cut it, because there are consequences to that that hardly anybody understands or grasps, which puts more price on to the consumers of Northern Ireland, and it will be on your heads.

Mr Durkan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: I will give way.

Mr Durkan: The Member accused others of cheerleading. Does he accept that the conflict that his party is cheerleading is what is causing hardship for people here now, never mind the carnage that it is causing elsewhere?

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for his intervention. Wisdom has been chasing you, but you have always been faster. The issue is not about a war in the Middle East but about the residents of Londonderry, Foyle and Limavady, Coleraine and Ballymena.

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

Mr Frew: It is about time that you focused on that.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: OK, thank you, Paul.

Ms Mulholland: I have been accused of many things in this place, but pushing a "chimneyless" agenda is a new one.

I thank my Alliance colleagues for bringing the motion to the House. It is an important issue at the best of times but, with the rise in global instability at the minute, it is more urgent than ever. I will focus a wee bit on the fuel poverty aspect and what is happening in homes across Northern Ireland. Households were already struggling. We already had a really high level of fuel poverty. Families were being pushed much deeper into poverty than they had ever been before. For many, that pressure is longer-lasting and hitting harder. We know that that is being felt more acutely in rural constituencies such as my own, where oil prices are among the highest. In fact, the Consumer Council said this week that the Causeway Coast and Glens area had the highest oil price in Northern Ireland.

Northern Ireland remains heavily reliant on heating oil, especially in rural areas. In parts of my constituency, there is a very low level of renewables or gas or alternatives to oil, and that is not something that we would be seen to be cheerleading or fighting for just because we are fighting for extra support. It leaves households directly exposed, as others have said, to global price shocks, and without protection. There is no price cap, no social tariff and no meaningful safety net in how that market operates. People are expected to pay up front. As spokesperson for poverty for my party, I hear daily that the people who are hit hardest are those who cannot afford to fill their tank. They get small amounts of oil more regularly, so they are feeling it more and more. They are being pushed into making those more expensive, smaller purchases, and that is the poverty premium in action. We see it in our most deprived areas.

At the same time, rural housing is more likely to be older, less energy efficient and harder to heat. When prices rise, people and households are not only hit with paying more for fuel; they are hit twice because they need more of it just to stay warm. We know the consequences: cold, damp homes damage physical and mental health. We see the pressure that that places on our health service and in excess winter deaths. That is why we have been pushing the Communities Minister on the retrofitting programme for social housing and also to extend that and understand how retrofitting can alleviate some of that pressure.

The key point is that the dependence on imported fossil fuels that drives energy insecurity is also what drives fuel poverty. That directly links to comments made earlier in the debate. As long as we remain exposed to those volatile global markets, households will have to pay the price. That is why greater renewable energy is not just a climate issue: for me, it is also a poverty issue. It is the clearest pathway to a more stable and socially just society.

We need to see a strengthening of our grid: that is accepted. We need an improvement in our connectivity, including North/South and east-west infrastructure. That is essential, if we are serious about protecting our constituents.

Ms K Armstrong: Will the Member give way?

Ms Mulholland: Yes, absolutely.

Ms K Armstrong: Does the Member agree that we also have an urban/rural split when it comes to fuel poverty? Those of us who live in rural areas are dependent on oil because the gas network has never reached us. People in urban areas have a lot more choice than those in rural areas.

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

Ms Mulholland: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Absolutely; I agree with you, Kellie. I see it in my own town and right across North Antrim.

I turn to the Sinn Féin amendment and the immediate support announced. I welcome the fact that £17 million has been allocated to Northern Ireland. We will support measures that ensure that the money reaches those who need it most. We have to be honest, though: it is not a huge pot of money when we look at what we face. If that funding is spread too thinly, it will make absolutely no difference whatsoever. It has to be targeted at those who are most at risk, so we are talking about low-income households, families with children, older people and those with disabilities. Those are the households that will feel this more keenly.

That requires urgent and transparent delivery from the Department for Communities. Therefore, we want to hear what the Minister for Communities is able and prepared to do. Short-term support is not enough on its own. People are not asking for anything unreasonable. The crux of the motion is that we are asking to live in warm, safe homes, and the socially just way to do that is through renewable energy. If we move forward on energy and security, tackling fuel poverty comes along with that. No household should be colder because it is in a rural community or under more pressure because it does not have as much money in the bank to buy a larger quantity of a fossil fuel.

I commend the motion to the House, and I thank my colleagues on the Economy Committee and the Infrastructure Committee and my colleague Kellie Armstrong on the Communities Committee. This issue goes right across all those Departments. It is not just a solo issue for the Economy Minister: I recognise that. If we all work together, we can find a way forward that is more socially just.

Mr Kearney: The fallout from the US/Israeli war against Iran has resulted in a global energy shock that is directly impacting on the least well off in our society, placing hard-pressed families into deeply precarious situations. In the midst of the existing cost-of-living crisis, workers and their families are now faced with unsustainable costs to heat their homes and fuel their vehicles. The local oilmen no longer sell fill-ups of tanks; they sell 10- and 20-gallon drums to their customers.

There is agreement in this discussion that our energy security has been fundamentally disrupted. The real danger, however, is that this shock will have damaging long-term and potentially permanent consequences in the foreseeable future. A radical approach will be needed to navigate the extent of the crisis in order to protect our working families and the most vulnerable members of our community. That will require maximum collaboration between all Departments. In short, a whole-of-government, whole-of-society approach is required. We took that position during the global COVID pandemic, when we attempted to develop a whole-of-government, whole-of-society approach in our response.

There has to be engagement with the oil consortia and energy industry representatives. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), the British Government generate about £24 billion to £25 billion a year from fuel duties. Taxes on petrol and diesel are 52·95p per litre, with VAT at 20% on top of that. Look at what is happening in Spain: that Government have already acted by reducing VAT on fuel products from 21% to 10%. Today, the Irish Government will introduce cuts in excise duty on petrol and diesel, although I will say that they have, to date, failed to deliver the interventions that are required to assist working families with home heating oil costs.

This war should not be used as an excuse to rip off hard-pressed working people.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way, and I agree with that point, but does the Member accept that a "radical approach", in his words, whether that is a drive towards renewables or, indeed, the net zero amendments that have stopped infrastructure projects, requires significant investment now and that that would risk putting further pressure on households in Northern Ireland?

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

Mr Kearney: Thanks. Thanks for that intervention, but we have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. We need a binary approach. We need to address the scale of the difficulties challenging working families, and we need to look strategically at how to get on top of the spiralling costs associated with fossil fuels. The British Government should act immediately by making decisive cuts in taxes and in VAT on petrol, diesel and home heating oil to bring down prices for all our consumers.

The reality in times of crisis is that oil companies increase their profits. Kate referred to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Take that as an example: it is estimated that, in the four years since the Russians invaded Ukraine, the five major global oil companies have profited by $0·5 trillion. Only big businesses benefit from the economics of war. The victims of the economics of war are ordinary working people and the most vulnerable in our society. The poor always end up worse off.

The British Government should, as an immediate measure, introduce a decisive windfall tax on all oil and gas producers. The British Government have the necessary levers to alleviate the pressures faced by customers. They should do so immediately by reducing duties on fuel for consumers and introducing a tax on the profiteers. However, doing so is a matter of political choice: you have to make the political decision that you are prepared to take that option.

Locally, our Department for Communities is responsible for putting a heat support scheme in place as soon as possible. That needs to be addressed, and it comes back to my earlier point about the requirement for a whole-of-government approach.

The increasing volatility in global relations and fossil fuel markets underscores the absolute urgency of progressing a renewable energy strategy. That is critical to reducing our collective vulnerability to geostrategic events beyond our control, such as the one that we are living through.

Moving away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy will take time and strategic investment, but we can no longer prevaricate when it comes to how we address the challenges of energy insecurity. We are facing an existential challenge, so the immediate action that is required to deal with the unpredictability of the current energy shocks must be stepped out. At the same time, however, we must accelerate efforts to develop a strong, strategic focus on a just transition towards —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Kearney: — the implementation of a comprehensive renewable energy strategy.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call the Minister for the Economy to respond to the debate. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes.

Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the discussion on ensuring the security, affordability and long-term sustainability of our future energy system. It is a timely opportunity for me to do so.

As with the Russian attack on Ukraine, the Israeli-Trump attack on Iran has triggered a global energy crisis, increasing the prices of the fossil fuels that we import and over which we have no control. Those rising costs are compounded by the fact that over 60% of our homes — around 500,000 households — rely on home heating oil. That means that global price shocks hit our homes and businesses faster. All of that shines a spotlight on the cost of our reliance on fossil fuels, where we remain a price-taker.

I acknowledge the £17 million of support that has been allocated to the Executive for people who depend on oil, but that is far from enough. To be clear, Mr Durkan, there has been no passing of the buck. The Department for Communities operates the equivalent scheme to that which is used to target that funding in Britain. DFC officials are exploring how best to do that here, and I assure you, and everyone else, that I will work with my Executive colleagues to support the Minister for Communities to deliver that support here.

Members are aware that, in last November's autumn Budget, the removal of certain renewable policy costs from bills in Britain was announced. That support did not originally apply here, but my officials successfully made the case for the North to benefit from it. As a result, the Treasury has confirmed that domestic electricity consumers here will have 75% of their NIRO-related costs removed for three years. That intervention is worth approximately £81 million over three years, or approximately £30 a household each year. The enabling statutory instrument was laid in Westminster last week and is expected to become law by the end of June. Homes will have £30 credited to their electricity bill or pay-as-you-go meter from 1 July 2026, and again on 1 April 2027 and 1 April 2028. We continue to make the case for more funding, however.

While we work daily to mitigate impacts, the Executive-approved energy strategy is the strategic blueprint for breaking the link to global commodity prices and our becoming self-sufficient in renewable energy. Increasing consumption of locally generated renewable energy is the single most effective way in which to reduce and stabilise household energy bills and strengthen security of supply. In December 2025, I published the midterm review of the energy strategy, which provided a comprehensive and transparent assessment of our progress to date. I recognise both as being significant achievements and structural constraints that need to be addressed urgently. Since 2021, over £72 million has been invested in decarbonising the government estate. That investment already delivers more than £12 million in annual energy savings, easing pressures on public budgets in areas such as health and education, as well as reducing emissions and demonstrating the public sector's leadership in energy transition.

The review reaffirmed the continuing importance of the three 2030 targets, the need for accelerated progress on renewables deployment and on delivering energy savings and the essential role of strengthened governance and delivery structures. Renewable electricity already supplies almost half the electricity that we consume. The latest official figures for the year up to December 2025 show that 47% of overall electricity consumption comes from renewables. That represents an increase of three percentage points over the year. We are also delivering growth in the green economy. The latest official figures from the NISRA show that, as of 2024, the green economy was worth more than £1·5 billion annually, up 40% from £1 billion in 2020. I remain firmly committed to our statutory target, under the Climate Change Act, of at least 80% renewable electricity consumption by 2030. To deliver that, several strategic interventions are being progressed.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Minister for giving way. She should have listened to the contribution from the Economy Committee Chair, Phillip Brett, earlier. Does she accept that 47% is a long way off 80%? Does she accept the view of the industry professionals who think that, on the balance of probability, it is just not achievable?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his intervention. I acknowledge, as I have done many times, that it will be challenging for us to achieve our target. I think that the industry experts indicated that it will be difficult to achieve that target; I do not think that any of us is under any allusions in that regard. However, we also recognise that there are a number of strands that will collectively and cumulatively contribute to our meeting that target, whether it is the different types of technologies; the renewable electricity price guarantee scheme; or the work on interconnection, storage and market structure. All of those things will help us to reach our target. I remain committed to doing as much as I possibly can to get us to that point.

As I mentioned, we are progressing several strategic interventions to help us to achieve that target, one being the renewable electricity price guarantee scheme. Over the next 25 years, that scheme will help us to become a price-maker rather than a price-taker. I hope that that paper will be on the Executive's agenda and approved by them this week.

A key action is the major investment that is being made in the grid. Between April 2025 and 2032, NIE Networks will invest £2·23 billion. That will increase the capacity of the network, producing a resilient supply for our homes and businesses, while enabling them to save money through accessing more renewable electricity. Another important workstream is the operational improvements that SONI and NIE are making to bring more affordable renewable electricity on to the system. Two synchronous compensators have been procured and are due to be commissioned early next year. Those will be followed by two more, which will reduce the amount of fossil fuel generation needed to keep the lights on. Other operational improvements, such as dynamic line rating, smart meters and increased grid-scale battery storage, will deliver more savings for consumers.

Like others, I remain deeply concerned about dispatch down, which arises from system-stability requirements and long-standing network constraints that prevent the full use of our available renewable energy generation. My officials are working closely with SONI, NIE Networks and the Utility Regulator to ensure that renewable electricity can be used more effectively as we move towards meeting our energy targets. In practical terms, that means a very focused programme of action. SONI is delivering its dispatch down action plan, supported by my Department, NIE Networks and the Utility Regulator, to reduce the amount of fossil fuel generation required to keep the system stable. That includes, as I mentioned, the commissioning of new synchronous compensators from next year, which will be followed by further units, alongside operational changes such as dynamic line rating, increased grid-scale battery storage and smart-system operation.

At the same time, we are progressing major grid investment and essential North/South and east-west interconnection, which, together, will ease network constraints and allow more renewable electricity to be used, rather than curtailing its use. Those are practical, system-wide measures that directly address dispatch down while maintaining security of supply.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for giving way. Will she state whether she supports the North/South interconnector? Is she with her party or adrift of it in that regard?

Dr Archibald: I think that the Member, and everybody in the House, has heard me speak about that issue on many occasions. I recognise the importance of the North/South interconnector to our security of supply. The Member is well aware of my party's position on the issue, but we have planning approval, which we, as Ministers and Departments here, are obligated to implement. Of course, the delays are being experienced not in the North but in the South.

The Member has taken us on nicely to something else that the motion references: North/South energy cooperation. That is essential. Ireland is a small island, and we have a fully integrated all-island single electricity market. Energy security also depends on strong east-west connectivity. I welcome the interest from Transmission Investment in a potential new interconnector from Scotland. Officials continue to work closely with the Utility Regulator as it considers the next stage of the licensing process.

To conclude, renewable energy is the most effective lever to enhance energy security, deliver stable consumer costs and build long-term economic resilience. There are challenges to overcome, including grid constraints, planning bottlenecks and the need to ensure that we have a workforce with the necessary skills, but overcoming those challenges and delivering self-sufficiency in affordable renewable energy, ending the import of fossil fuels, breaking the link with global commodity prices and paying a fair price for the energy that we produce locally are the prize that we are trying to achieve. That will deliver more good jobs and a more productive and regionally balanced economy. Thank you very much.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. I call Cathy Mason to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 2. Cathy, you have five minutes.

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

I thank the motion's sponsors for the timely opportunity to speak on the issue and our amendment.

Earlier this month, when Trump and Netanyahu launched their illegal attack on Iran, the DUP could not do enough gloating and cheerleading. Last week, the DUP Communities Minister, who is responsible for tackling fuel poverty, was in America showcasing his vanity projects and talking about how Ulster's ties with the US are stronger than ever. It seems to hit a nerve when those are described as "vanity projects". The reality is that, when people would have expected to have heard a statement in the Chamber from the Communities Minister on how he is going to deliver support to the most vulnerable, we instead heard a statement on the US250 activities. That is tone-deaf. He was cheerleading, while Trump's illegal war in Iran has led to a rising cost of fuel to his constituents. The DUP and its Ministers have, once again, got their priorities wrong.

Instead of gallivanting around Washington and rubbing shoulders with warmongers, Sinn Féin Ministers were here, locked in and focused on ensuring that our communities are sheltered from the spike in energy prices. While the DUP was displaying its financial illiteracy and spreading misinformation, Sinn Féin Ministers, including the Economy Minister, were working hard to secure £17 million for energy support payments. As Sian Mulholland mentioned, that is a drop in the ocean. We recognise that, and our Ministers have continued to press the British Government for an improved package for struggling households, but every penny matters as workers and families see prices spiralling out of control and struggle to heat their homes.

The Minister seems to think that he deserves a pat on the back, but his Department is the Department with responsibility for tackling fuel poverty, and he is responsible for administering the fuel support payments, but we are yet to see any movement.

Phillip Brett made a comment about gaslighting. I found that ironic. During the Communities Minister's theatrics earlier, he tried to tell us that if he had stayed at home and not cosied up with Trump and his cronies, he would have achieved nothing. I am sure that those who are sitting at home, worried about paying their heating bill and financial security, will say that he has achieved nothing for them.

Mark Durkan told Ministers to stop passing the buck. The Minister referred to that comment. Yes, people want support. The quickest way that we can see that being done is through the Communities Department, where the mechanisms exist. The Minister for the Economy has said that she will support the Communities Minister in whatever way she can to get that money into the pockets of those who need it.

Households are struggling to heat their homes — they are sick with worry. The Communities Minister must work at speed to get that funding out the door to households that are in desperate need of support as a result of energy bill hikes. There can be no more delays.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Diane Forsythe to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 1. Diane, you have five minutes.

Ms Forsythe: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I will reflect on the comments that have been made around the House. Kate Nicholl spoke of the need to be ambitious in setting targets. Phillip Brett outlined the need for our amendment.

He talked about the need to get on with grid connection policy and said that, if there is a possibility of reaching the targets, we need the east-west interconnector. I am quite new to the Economy Committee, and, when it comes to the dispatch down issue, I find it flabbergasting that there is such a drive for increased renewables, yet, when the energy is created, there is no capacity to fully take it and do something with it. We really need a proper policy in place. Phillip also outlined the need to be honest with the public about how the 2030 targets are not achievable, and he challenged the contradictions in the Alliance policies and positions on that. He also highlighted the Audit Office report on energy and how it has shown no impact from the legislation to date. He also highlighted the importance of continuing with fossil fuels alongside managing our way towards increased renewables.

Colm Gildernew was followed later by Cathy Mason with her bizarre criticism of the DUP Communities Minister, who moved at pace within hours of the announcement of £17 million by standing up his officials, unlike other Ministers, who took months to take action publicly on other measures.

Diana Armstrong spoke about how renewables alone cannot meet the needs of Northern Ireland, especially not in the short term. She said that the statutory milestones are repeatedly missed, as are our targets, and that we need to be realistic about that. She also spoke about the need for the east-west interconnector.

Mark Durkan and Pádraig Delargy spoke about Northern Ireland's specific vulnerability and susceptibility to price increases, how significant that is in rural areas and the real impact of that. Paul Frew highlighted issues around wind fuel. He said that, even if 100% was wind fuel, we would still need a power plant powered by fossil fuels to distribute it. Jonny Buckley highlighted the need for consumer choice. Sian Mulholland rightly highlighted fuel poverty and its real impact on many families across Northern Ireland. Declan Kearney talked about the need for a whole-of-government and whole-of-society response, which, I am sure, everyone agrees with.

In her response, the Minister firmly committed to the statutory targets, and I welcome her support for moving forward with the east-west interconnector. She seemed to agree with the content of our amendment, as she talked about the need to manage where we are with fossil fuels while having a detailed and realistic plan to reduce our dependence on them as we move forward on renewables. She talked about strategic interventions and the significant investment in the grid of over £2 billion. She shared our concerns about dispatch down.

To me, it feels like most people around the House have not disagreed with the content or themes of our amendment. We recognise that, as we move towards renewables, we will not click our fingers and achieve it overnight. I do not feel that anybody has disagreed with that in substance. We need to recognise the essential role that fossil fuels play here and how susceptible we are to sharp moves in the market. However, using renewables alone is not possible for us here, and we need to see honesty in our politics.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call John Blair to wind up on the motion. John, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr Blair: Principal Deputy Speaker, thank you. With your permission, I will begin by addressing the issue of Members here being called "zealots" for daring to have a difference of opinion with a Member over there. I make it clear, through you, Principal Deputy Speaker, that having a different opinion does not make me a zealot. It means that I have a different opinion, and the Member would do well to celebrate democracy and the freedoms within it, including difference, in the way that some of us can.

At the heart of the Alliance motion is the removal of our dependence on volatile imported fossil fuels that are driving fuel poverty and the climate crisis. I am sure that all of us have been contacted in the past few weeks by constituents who are not only concerned about the rising cost of fuel and what that means for their families but incredibly frustrated by the inconsistency of bills and the resulting inability to plan for the future because of that. While the focus on bills is, of course, important — no one here will deny that — what is arguably more crucial is addressing the underlying cause behind them, because, if we continue on our current path, we will face this crisis or similar crises again and again and our energy supplies will become pawns on the global stage, if they are not that already.

Our dependence on fossil fuels is not just an economic vulnerability but an environmental and climate emergency. Despite the denials of some, it is not renewable energy that is driving climate breakdown but fossil fuels: coal, oil and gas, the very fuels on which we remain overdependent. The motion recognises that reality. It reaffirms that greater generation of renewable energy is the clearest and lowest-cost pathway not only to protecting our climate but to enhancing our energy security and deliver more stable and, ultimately, lower costs for consumers. That is why it is right that the motion prioritises renewables, North/South collaboration on infrastructure and interconnection and a credible comprehensive plan to end our reliance on fossil fuels.

A system that is dominated by domestic renewables shields us from volatile global fossil fuel markets and the geopolitical crises that drive price spikes. It reduces the air pollution that still damages public health in our towns and cities and cuts emissions in line with our legal obligations.

Mr Brett: I appreciate the Member's giving way. I know that he has a passion for the issue. However, the Utility Regulator and even the Minister have recognised the vital nature of east-west interconnection. That is included in our amendment. It is not included in the motion, and I am not sure why. Can you set out for the House what aspect of the amendment in my name you are opposed to? I have not heard an articulate reason why you oppose it.

Mr Blair: I thank the Member for the intervention. I will come to that and some aspects of his comments that, I think, should bring cross-party support if they do not already.

Whilst the Alliance Party is not suggesting that we pull the use of fossil fuels overnight, the DUP amendment frames fossil fuels as an inevitable reality of our future. By describing fossil fuels as an ongoing and essential part of the energy mix, it risks locking us into long-term dependence on the very fuels that cause the climate breakdown and expose our constituents to repeated price shocks. From both a climate and energy-security perspective, they can no longer be treated as a permanent pillar of our future system.

On the other hand, the Sinn Féin amendment rightly and undeniably emphasises the role of the Department for Communities as the body responsible for addressing fuel poverty and managing fuel support schemes. Supporting that amendment does not detract from the motion's core environmental goals; on the contrary, it reinforces them by reminding us that a just transition must bring people with it, especially those on lower incomes, those in poorly insulated homes and those already in or on the brink of fuel poverty.

I turn now to comments made by other Members. I will try not to repeat reflections that were made in the previous winding-up speeches. In proposing the motion, my colleague Kate Nicholl ably addressed the dependency on fossil fuels. That point is worth repeating right through the debate and beyond. In moving amendment No 1, Phillip Brett talked about other parties having an obsession with net zero. I will venture to suggest that Hansard would probably back me up in saying that Mr Brett's party has mentioned net zero more often than any other party in the past days and weeks. I am sure that he would not, for a moment, expect me to be able to rectify that obsession.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr Blair: Not at the moment, Mr Buckley, no.

I am sure that Mr Brett, being the reasonable guy that he is, would not expect me to try to solve that obsession for him. In responding to an intervention from one of his colleagues, he mentioned the need to deliver the North/South interconnector: that is the issue on which cross-party support should be available. He also mentioned that 30% of renewable energy is not reaching the network. Again, that is something on which, we should all agree, every effort should be made.

In moving amendment No 2, Colm Gildernew talked about the global scenario and the ongoing war in the Middle East. Diana Armstrong said that her party shares the concern about rising energy prices. She referenced overexposure to global energy markets and said that it was stark. It is bizarre that she could not support the motion, which is trying to address that over-reliance on fossil fuels and global markets. Mark Durkan referenced fuel poverty, including that in his constituency of Foyle. He said that there was a need for a modern and resilient system. Sian Mulholland addressed similar points. Pádraig Delargy reminded us that:

In the Minister's response, she talked about the financial assistance that was recently announced by the UK Government as being simply insufficient. She also informed us that the renewable economy is worth over £1·4 billion. The Minister went on to acknowledge that it will be difficult to achieve targets but stressed that a number of strands of work can assist us in doing that. Perhaps all of us should be ambitious when it comes to those targets.

The Alliance motion is not just about meeting our legal climate targets; it is about the kind of society that we are trying to build, one that chooses clean air over pollution, resilience over vulnerability and long-term security over short-term convenience. Renewables are cheaper, cleaner and more secure. Fossil fuels are costly, polluting and unstable. For those reasons, we hope that others in the Chamber will join us in urging:

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I never thought that I would see the day when the DUP was clapping for Declan Kearney. There you go.

Right, down to the serious stuff.

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

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: In accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three minutes and move straight to a Division.

Billy, will you secure the Doors?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: William, you will remember this. It is your last night, and the DUP has forced three Divisions, but, three times, I have not needed to say, "Clear the Lobbies", because you are always on the mark. Sian Mulholland said earlier that you, Edwin Poots and Gerry Kelly are the last three originals from the painting in the Senate Chamber. You have left your mark on this place, which is more than I can say about Gerry and Edwin. [Laughter.]

On behalf of us all, I wish you the very best. You have been a pleasure to work with, and you deserve every happiness. All the best, William. Good luck.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): In conjunction with the Business Committee, the Speaker has given leave to Eóin Tennyson to raise the topic of A1 junctions phase 2. The Member has up to 15 minutes.

Mr Tennyson: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to have this important debate. I thank Minister Kimmins for being here to respond to it and also colleagues from the Upper Bann constituency, from across all parties, for being here this evening.

The A1 is one of the busiest arterial routes in Northern Ireland and a strategic transport corridor. Every day, 40,000 vehicles travel along it. Despite its importance, it remains one of the most dangerous roads in Northern Ireland and has been the scene of far too many tragedies and far too much heartbreak. In the past 17 years alone, more than 40 road users have lost their lives on the A1. I express my sympathies to all those who have suffered loss or bereavement as a result of accidents on that road.

I pay particular tribute to Monica Heaney, who joins us in the Public Gallery. Members will know Monica's story. Her son, Karl, was just 27 when he was tragically killed in a collision near Banbridge in May 2018. In the depths of unimaginable grief, Monica and Ciara Sands, Karl's partner, channelled their loss into action through the campaign group A1: How Many Must Die?. No parent, partner or family should ever have to endure what Monica, Ciara and so many others have faced. Monica and Ciara have carried their grief with extraordinary courage, dignity and determination. The memory of their loved one has become a quiet but powerful force for change. Their advocacy, supported by people including Sinéad Lunny and my colleague Councillor Joy Ferguson, has ensured that critical safety improvements remain at the top of the agenda in the Assembly. We owe them our thanks and our respect but also our commitment finally to deliver the safety improvements for which they have fought so hard.

The A1 phase 2 safety upgrade is not an optional luxury or an extra. Rather, it is essential for promoting road safety and saving lives. It is a priority for people in Upper Bann, as it is for people in other constituencies such as South Down and Lagan Valley and for everyone who travels along the Belfast to Dublin economic corridor. In Banbridge, it is an issue that I am asked about more than any other. Every household has a story of a near miss, of a frightening moment or of a loved one who narrowly escaped harm. We know why that is. It is because the gaps in the central reservation along the A1 are directly linked to the severity and frequency of collisions. A Department for Infrastructure submission to the 2020 public inquiry stated that 45% of collisions occurred adjacent to a central reservation gap: places where right turns, U-turns and slowing for private entrances are all possible but are deeply unsafe and dangerous actions. The proposed upgrades would close all the gaps on the carriageway through having a continuous central reservation barrier and provide four new grade-separated junctions. Those are not cosmetic changes but life-saving interventions.

Plans to upgrade that section of the A1 have been under discussion, in one form or another, since at least 2007. A public inquiry, which began in March 2020, concluded that there is significant support for the proposed scheme across the community, including from public- and private-sector organisations. The inquiry noted that it did not receive a single submission objecting to the principle behind the scheme. Despite the urgency, cross-party support in the Chamber and clear demand for change from the public, progress has been painfully slow, however.

In 2021, the then Minister for Infrastructure, Nichola Mallon, responded positively to the inquiry, accepting its findings and approving the scheme. Without funding being secured, however, the project continued to stall. Then came the collapse of the Assembly in early 2022 and, with it, further delay. In February 2024, my Alliance colleague Patrick Brown presented the Chamber with a petition that was started by Monica and Ciara. It had 12,738 signatures, which was a testament to the strength of public feeling and the determination of campaigners to deliver change. In July of that year, just ahead of the general election, the then Minister announced that the embargo on the phase-2 scheme had been lifted, raising hopes that change would finally be delivered. Procurement began in December, and we were told that construction would start in early 2026. However, here we are, Minister. We have been told that the project will be delayed again until 2027, pending the outcome of the A5 appeal. That means that completion is unlikely before 2030, which will be a full 23 years since plans were first touted.

Those delays are happening in the absence of a multi-year capital Budget and without an overarching investment strategy to guide long-term infrastructure decisions. Those are systemic issues that must be addressed. Whilst many of them are beyond the control of the current Minister, the decision to pause progress on the A1 whilst awaiting the outcome of the A5 appeal is a decision of the Minister that is profoundly disappointing and unjustifiable. The A1 and A5 projects are not in any way comparable. The A5 is a new 58-mile road, costing £1·7 billion and requiring 800 hectares of land. The A1 scheme is an existing road's being upgraded over 13 miles, costing £120 million. I accept that proceeding ahead of the A5 appeal carries some risk, but so, too, does the delay to the project. That risk is much greater. Delay means higher costs, more uncertainty and more lives put at risk through inaction.

This evening, I appeal to you directly, Minister, to use the authority of your office to proceed urgently with that vital safety project, even if that means proceeding at risk. Campaigners have played their part, as have bereaved families. Local residents have been unwavering in their demand for progress. The evidence is clear, the need is urgent, and the cost of inaction is far too high. We must treat the issue as the priority that it is, honour the courage of those who have campaigned, and, above all, ensure that no more families face the heartbreak that has been far too common in years gone by.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): All other Members who wish to speak will now have approximately six minutes.

Mr O'Dowd: For the record, I am speaking as an MLA for Upper Bann. I thank Eóin for bringing forward the Adjournment debate this evening. I also pay tribute to the many A1 campaigners, including Monica and Ciara, who have kept the issue on the agenda, despite their heartbreak. I am sure that it has been very difficult for them to continue to drive that agenda, but they have done so with great courage and dignity. Any time that I have met them, I have always been impressed by their dignity and commitment, and with the forthright way in which they presented their case. I commend them for that.

I am very familiar with the project. As has been pointed out, in July 2024, when I was Infrastructure Minister, there was hope that we could move quite quickly on it. However, no one could have foretold what was to happen next: how a judgement in another case would impact on a wide range of infrastructure projects in which the current Infrastructure Minister is involved.

I understand the call to treat the A1 differently from other projects, but, as the old adage goes, act in haste and regret at your leisure. The step that the Minister has taken — to extend the restricted list — is the correct way forward. The last thing that we want to happen is for the Minister to take a different action, only for a ruling in a court elsewhere to have an impact on that decision and knock us back a couple of steps in respect of the A1 junction. We do not want to go back to a public inquiry, environmental impact assessments or any of those things, because they take time and considerable amounts of money, and you are not always sure about where they will end up.

We have certainty about a number of elements of the A1 project. We have been through the public inquiry and a number of other elements. We know where it is. The Minister has extended the restricted list, which can be picked up almost immediately, moving forward. I can understand that the campaigners, the people who are listening to the debate or those who may read about it are not interested in what I call Civil Service terminology, or government terminology, but these are important steps, and they are important reasons why the Minister has taken the decisions that she has taken, thus far. We are nearer to the completion of the journey. I hope that the court case on the A5 goes the way that it should and that that project moves forward and opens the way for the A1 project.

There needs to be greater legal protection for Executive projects. We have to start considering how we as an Assembly and Executive consider how we protect Executive projects that are being brought forward for the common good of the people.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. Will he elaborate? Is that in relation to protection from climate change amendments and their impact on road infrastructure projects, in particular, which is the main topic?

Mr O'Dowd: I am not talking about that issue, specifically. Major projects are susceptible to judicial review, because they are such complex, multilayered projects that require significant amounts of work and research and data. Within all that research, data, policies etc, someone can find a flaw. When that flaw is exposed, the project is set back. Executive projects, which are being carried out for the betterment of the people whom we are elected to serve, deserve and require greater legal protection than they currently have.

That is particularly the case in road infrastructure projects. Look at the A1 project. It is about road safety and ensuring that people can travel the road more safely than they do at present. Eóin referred to the 40 deaths over the past number of years. Each one of those deaths was a tragedy. The A1 is the major economic highway from Belfast to Dublin, and it is vital to our economy. The need for those sorts of projects to move ahead quickly cannot be overemphasised. Delay causes heartache and more financial consequences, neither of which can be measured against the other, but both need to be taken into account, and we need to be able to deliver our infrastructure projects much more quickly than we currently can.

The Executive, rightly, come under scrutiny in these matters, but this is not exclusive to the Executive. If you look at what is happening down South, in England or elsewhere, you will see that Governments are facing up to the challenge of protecting their major infrastructure projects. We have to start moving in that direction.

Mrs Dodds: I thank my constituency colleague for securing the debate. It is a subject that the Minister and I have talked about many times. She has answered many questions in the Chamber on the A1. I live along the side of the A1. It is my route on to the carriageway that carries so much danger every time that it is used.

As Eóin has said, when you live in Banbridge, the A1 is one of those topics that is constantly on the agenda, because it is so dangerous. Traffic is fast, and those middle turns are a very, very dangerous way of getting across the carriageway, particularly because lorries, for example, try to use them and then block the oncoming traffic.

The A1 junctions phase 2 project has been on the go for a long time. It is a relatively small project, if you think about it against the A5. It is 25 kilometres between Loughbrickland and Hillsborough, but it is the main arterial route linking Belfast and Dublin. It is a route that carries over 40,000 cars every day — it is a hugely busy piece of road.

Closing up those gaps in the central median and the provision of the new junctions will make an enormous difference to the safety of my constituents as they try to exit or cross that road. I appreciate that the Minister, in extending the restricted period, has kept the A1 scheme almost on life support while waiting for the outcome of the A5 project. However, Minister, I cannot overemphasise the dangerous nature of the road and the fact that, as I come to Belfast in the mornings, there are regularly accidents on that piece of road.

I am glad that the now Minister of Finance spoke in the debate, because we had him out in Banbridge to discuss the road, the new junctions and so on, and we were very hopeful that that scheme would progress and perhaps be started before the end of this mandate. That gave us some hope, but we are now in a situation where a number of very strategic infrastructure projects, whether they are as large as the A5, the A1, the Lagan footbridge or whatever, are now in abeyance while we wait for the judgement in the A5 appeal. It is a bit ironic that the person who secured the debate and the Minister who will respond to it both voted for the climate change targets that are at the very heart of the A5 judgement.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way. Does she appreciate that there is climate change legislation in other parts of the UK, including Wales, for example, and that major road safety projects there have been able to proceed in tandem with trying to achieve those targets? Does she also agree that the carbon impact of the A1 and the impact on traffic is not comparable at all to that of, for example, the A5?

Mrs Dodds: In a way, I understand the argument that you are putting forward, but the fact of the matter is that Justice McAlinden, in delivering his judgement on the A5, said that it was. We can only go with the judgement that was handed down. Unless the Minister is going to operate at risk and override the judgement, we will have to deal with Justice McAlinden's judgement, in which he said that those climate change targets could not be met if these infrastructure projects went ahead. We have a huge problem with infrastructure in Northern Ireland and the issues that flow from it.

Minister, in your response to the debate, I would like you to help us understand what is going on with the current appeal. I understand that Justice McAlinden has been asked to rule on a new point of law. He said:

That is Justice McAlinden in his most recent interim report on the A5, which is intricately bound up with how we can progress on the A1. I would like Members to understand that. We need to understand what is going on and why someone as eminent as Justice McAlinden, who handed down that judgement, is saying that two Departments of this Executive are behaving in an "unprincipled", "unacceptable" and "unfair" way and "gaslighting" the court. That really needs to be answered.

Minister, we want the A1 to go ahead, and I know that you want the A1 to go ahead. It is essential for the safety of road users, not just those from Upper Bann, where most of this falls into —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member should bring her remarks to close.

Mrs Dodds: I will.

— but those across Northern Ireland. It is important that the Minister explains to those in the Gallery what is happening.

Mr Beattie: First of all, I thank my colleague Eóin Tennyson for securing this really important Adjournment debate. It is important because we are having a life-saving discussion, so thank you for that. I also thank the Minister for coming to the House to respond to our concerns. Minister, I hope that, in your response, we hear some imaginative thinking, even if it is just thinking as opposed to what you are actually going to do. Thank you for coming along. Certainly, I thank Monica Heaney for being here and acknowledge all those campaigners who have campaigned for that stretch of road to be made safer.

Let us be clear about phase 2 of the A1 scheme and what it is supposed to deliver. It is not to build a new road. It is a safety intervention on one of the most dangerous stretches of tarmac in Northern Ireland. It is a £120 million to £130 million project covering 25 kilometres between Hillsborough and Loughbrickland. It will close all the gaps in the central reservation. Just imagine that. On that stretch of the A1, we have a road that has gaps in the central reservation. It is an extremely fast road, and trying to cross it and get into one of those gaps to go in a completely different direction is crazy. It is madness. I used to drive regularly from north Yorkshire to London down the A1. It was changed, section by section, to become the A1(M). You now have the A1 from north Yorkshire — 338 kilometres of it — down to London, with sections of it that are now the A1(M). It does not have any of those central reservations, which are absolutely crazy. The scheme would also install concrete safety barriers and build four new grade-separated junctions.

Eóin has already set out the whole issue of the A1 and how it links the M1 in Northern Ireland with the M1 in the Irish Republic, but it is worth setting that out again. It is such an important road, with so many users. The fatalities that we have on it are obscene. The promise was simple: to stop people dying on a road that carries 40,000 vehicles a day. The outcome so far has been a scheme that is in limbo.

Technically, the Department has done its groundwork. Procurement began in late 2024, a restricted tender list was notified in May 2025, and Minister O'Dowd ring-fenced up to £30 million for the project. The architecture of delivery was set, but here is the rub: the outcome today is a project that has been frozen in time. Instead of breaking ground as planned in early 2026, we are now looking at a tender process that is being extended into February 2027 just to keep the scheme viable. The only physical outcome so far is that the Department is holding a place in a queue, waiting for a court ruling on the A5, an important project 50 miles away.

That brings me to the effects of the delay, which are devastating. The primary effect is going to be loss of life. You cannot have a 25 kilometre stretch of road with vehicles travelling that quickly and other vehicles trying to get across the road to go in the complete opposite direction and believe that we are not going to have accidents. Therefore, in not fixing it, we are accepting that there will be accidents. We are accepting injury and loss of life. Every month that it is stalled is another month in which families in Upper Bann and Lagan Valley risk their lives crossing a dual carriageway with gaps. As campaigners who have lost loved ones have reminded the Minister, this is a matter of life and death. Delays do not just cost money; they cost futures.

The secondary effect is that of political and legal paralysis. The delay is not due to funding or design but to the A5 court ruling regarding climate targets. The Department is terrified of launching a project only to be sued for non-compliance with the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. Consequently, we are seeing a contagion of caution. The Minister is waiting for the A5 appeal outcome before moving the A1 scheme forward. That is a failure of risk management, Minister. I genuinely believe that, at times, we have to take risks in order to improve the lives and, in this case, save the lives of people here in Northern Ireland. Are we seriously suggesting that closing the gaps on a road is incompatible with climate targets? If so, our legislation is broken. If not, we are limiting our ability to act.

Phase 2 is currently on hold. The legacy of that delay is eroding public trust in Banbridge and the wider areas of Lagan Valley and Upper Bann. Local representatives are calling for the Minister to take action now. The effects are deeply felt by families in Upper Bann. It is important that we stand here and represent those who have suffered loss and injury, and that is why this Adjournment debate is so important. It is important that Minister represents the same constituents whom we represent. I ask her to do that.

Mr McNulty: The A1 junctions phase 2 scheme aims to provide further safety improvements along the A1 dual carriageway between Hillsborough and Loughbrickland. The improvements will include the provision of new grade-separated junctions, the closing up of all gaps in the central reservation and the provision of continuous central reserve safety barriers along the entire route. I thank the Member for Upper Bann for securing this Adjournment debate and the Minister for being here to hear it this evening.

Seven years ago, a young man was travelling along the A1, and he met traffic that was coming the wrong way. He had no time to react. His life was ended in an instant. We have all had near misses on that road, but Karl Heaney did not have a near miss that night. He could not escape what he came upon. Karl's mother, Monica Heaney, is in the Gallery this evening. Talk about strength, forbearance and determination: despite her pain and trauma, she has been a determined advocate for movement on that road improvement scheme over the past number of years. I cannot begin to empathise with the pain experienced by Monica Heaney and the families of the other 40 victims over the past 20 years. They hope that the road will be improved, but they are not seeing much from this place, unfortunately.

The A1 links the two largest cities on this island. It links many families, friends, commuters, tourists and all those who travel between Belfast and Dublin. The road is located on a strategically important transport corridor for our island that connects our two major cities. It should be a place of safety and connectivity. However, the A1 has been plagued by tragic accidents, injuries and deaths, which have, in part, been due to the dangerous junctions and people crossing the dual carriageway.

The project has been planned since 2006, and it has had multiple iterations. A year ago, there was hope when Minister Kimmins announced that the project had gone past the pre-qualification stage, the shortlist for contractors had been agreed and the Department was going out to final tender. Then — bam — the A5 judgement pulled the plug on the A5 and the A1. It is telling that we have two parties in the Chamber whose Ministers are inextricably linked to that judgement.

I will read out parts of reports of Judge McAlinden's ruling on the A5 and what he said about the Departments. In a damning ruling, High Court judge Mr Justice McAlinden accused Stormont Departments of being "unprincipled" and engaging in "gaslighting" regarding the long-delayed A5 road upgrade project in the North. The judge strongly criticised the Department for Infrastructure and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs for their handling of the legal challenges surrounding the £1·6 billion, 58-mile project, which aims to dual the major route between Derry and Aughnacloy.

As for gaslighting, Mr Justice McAlinden stated that the Departments tried to introduce new, contradictory arguments during an appeal regarding the project's compliance with climate change targets, portraying them as their original position, which the judge deemed to be "entirely unfair and unacceptable". On their contradictory approach, the judge highlighted a:

which he said was "fundamentally at odds" with the case that they had previously presented. On breaching climate goals, the legal challenges brought by the Alternative A5 Alliance were upheld based on the project's failure to comply with the North's strict net-zero emission targets. The judge previously ruled that arguments about the project's approval were "irrational".

Despite those legal failings, there have been more than 57 deaths on the A5 since 2006, leading to intense political pressure to proceed with the improvements.

We can therefore talk about the A1 all that we like, but it will not proceed without the A5. The failure of the A5 project comes down to two Departments that were the subject of strong judgements by a judge in the North who stated what went wrong on that front.

Multiple questions remain. Why was the A1 project stalled? Yes, it was down to the A5, but why was it stalled? Who made the decision not to proceed with the A1 project? What happens to the pre-qualification stage now and to the tendering that has already been completed? Do the shortlisted contractors remain in place? What about the contract value? I heard the Member for Upper Bann John O'Dowd talk about greater legal protections for Executive projects. What have the Executive done on that front? How have the Executive progressed such protections?

As I have said already, Monica Heaney is here today, and I hope that the parties can give hope to her and all the families who have lost loved ones on the A1.

Mr Buckley: We can all agree that the decision to delay phase 2 of the A1 junctions scheme by a further 12 months is deeply concerning and is causing nothing but further worry and anxiety for those who live on and travel along the route and for those who, sadly, have lost loved ones on it. It is not just another infrastructure project. Rather, it is a £130 million investment in safety on one of the most critical and dangerous strategic routes in Northern Ireland. The stretch of the A1 between Hillsborough and Loughbrickland, serving the Upper Bann and Lagan Valley constituencies, is well known to all of us in the Chamber. It is a high-speed dual carriageway that carries significant volumes of traffic each and every day, yet, despite its importance, it remains fundamentally flawed in its design.

We still have dangerous right-turn movements across central reservation gaps, as well as junctions that were never intended for the level of traffic flow and types of vehicles that they now carry. Tragically, we have the consequences to prove that. Over a 17-year period, 41 people have lost their lives along that corridor. I commend Monica Heaney for having the courage and bravery to come to the Assembly today. I imagine that each and every occasion on which she hears the A1 mentioned must bring back very painful memories.

Mr Beattie: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will indeed.

Mr Beattie: It is really important to put on the record that none of those who lost their life or was injured was making illegal manoeuvres on the road or demonstrating bad road sense. Does the Member agree that it was the design of the road that caused those injuries and deaths?

Mr Buckley: The Member makes a very valid point. Some 661 collisions have occurred on the A1 over that same 17-year period. How many of those could have been fatalities?

Let me be very clear that those 41 deaths are not just statistics. Rather, they represent lives lost, families devastated and communities left grieving because of flawed design. Departmental analysis itself has acknowledged that the road carries particular risks because of its right-turn junctions on a high-speed route. That is exactly why phase 2 of the A1 scheme is so vital. Closing the central reservation gaps and delivering grade-separated junctions will finally bring the road up to an adequate safety standard. How therefore can it be justified that that life-saving project is now being delayed yet again because of a court ruling on another project and the inevitable fallout from the Climate Change Act, and from specific amendments to it in particular? That is the elephant in the room. It is the reason that the A1, the A5 and the A4 Enniskillen southern bypass are facing their particular challenges. I will make this statement here: those will not be the only infrastructure projects that fall foul of poor legislation. Let us call it as it is. A vital, life-saving infrastructure project is being put on hold because the system has become so constrained that it cannot deliver what is plainly needed. Many people will not understand that, and they will be right not to. They will see a dangerous road, a ready-made solution and, unfortunately, a Minister whose hands are tied by the very legislative amendments that her party backed.

Every day that the A1 project is pushed back is another day on which motorists are forced to take risks that we already know how to eliminate. That is the inevitable consequence of unrealistic legislation being applied in a way that blocks progress instead of enabling it. Common sense on such matters has been lost. Further delay and further damage will be caused, and more families will be destroyed because of unrealistic climate change targets that are forcing our systems to grind to a halt and will continue to be the problem. Safety has taken a back seat.

The Minister needs to explain clearly why the A1 project is not being prioritised; what is being done to get it moving again; and whether her party and the Alliance Party, which is the party of the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, will finally get to grips with the conversation about the need for the amendments to be removed in order to ensure that infrastructure projects can continue.

Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will, if I have time at the finish.

Ultimately, the amendments need to be removed to kick-start our infrastructure. That is what is required. The people who use the A1 road deserve action, not excuses. The people who use the A5 road deserve action, not excuses. The people who want to drive on an A4 Enniskillen bypass deserve action, not excuses. I trust that the Assembly can get to grips with that reality and do so very quickly.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call the Minister for Infrastructure to respond. Minister, you have up to 10 minutes.

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

I thank Eóin Tennyson for securing this important debate. This issue is of the utmost importance to me. I have personally campaigned on it as a constituency MLA. I travel the A1 road every day. I have met and know families who have been affected, and I know Monica very well. This is not just another debate; it is on an issue that I hold very dear. I do not want to be in this position. If there were a simple solution, as Members here tonight seem to think that there is, we would not be having the debate.

I recognise the strength of feeling, locally and across the North, about the A1 scheme. There are strong similarities to the situation with the A5 in the rationale for wanting to see the A1 upgraded. I was proud that my colleague John O'Dowd took the definitive action and the decision to proceed with the A1 project and get it moving after years upon years of waiting. That is how important it is to all of us. As Members have said, the concerns of residents, businesses and those who use the A1 regularly are well understood but no more so than by those who have been impacted on by the loss of a loved one along it. As a constituency MLA, I took part in the public inquiry, because I recognised that that was another important step in getting the road built and addressing all the issues that have been articulated here this evening.

I am acutely aware of the level of Assembly interest in and scrutiny of the issue, including the questions on the legal and environmental robustness of major road schemes. I am determined that lessons are learned so that projects can progress on a sound footing and be delivered with confidence. I am clear that the A1 is one of the most strategically important transport corridors on the island. It is a key part of the eastern seaboard corridor; it provides a vital link between Belfast and Dublin; and, as Members have said, it carries a significant volume of traffic every day, including commuters, freight and those making cross-border journeys.

With that level of use comes a responsibility to ensure that this corridor is as safe as possible for everyone who relies on it. The A1 phase 2 scheme has been developed to address those long-standing safety concerns at the key junctions, including the closing of approximately 100 gaps in the central median along the 25-kilometre stretch where the risk of collision has been well established. Barely a week goes by when there is not a near miss, and many of them have been close to me. It is very evident for all to see just how crucial this is.

Improving safety, reducing those conflict points and providing a safer environment for all road users remain the central objectives of the scheme, and I reaffirm that the project continues to be regarded as a priority in my Department's major roads programme and something that I have factored in for the next three years in the hope that we get a multi-year Budget as that also will be critical to the delivery of the scheme.

Mr Buckley: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Kimmins: I want to make some progress.

At the heart of the issue is road safety. That is of the utmost importance to me because behind every one of those statistics is a person. There is a family and a community whose lives have been changed forever. Every single death on our roads is one too many, and reducing the number of people killed or seriously injured remains one of my foremost priorities.

I pay tribute to the long-standing efforts of Monica Heaney and the other campaigners who have not only stood up for everyone in our communities but turned their grief and their loss into something that will protect others. I visited New-Bridge Integrated College last year and gave it my commitment that the project will go ahead as planned. We were well on track and confident that we would see it proceed in the spring of this year.

Many of the other voices that we have heard strongly advocating for the scheme have been shaped by personal loss or serious injury, and I have great admiration for the courage and determination that it takes to continue standing up for change in the face of such tragedy.

My focus on safety reflects the serious collision history on that stretch of the A1, and it has been highlighted repeatedly in my responses to Assembly questions. That evidence underpins the case for a comprehensive scheme that delivers lasting safety improvements rather than short-term or piecemeal interventions.

As Members have mentioned, all the major infrastructure projects that are currently within my remit have had to be considered in light of the A5 judgement. Whilst we might have different views on how that can be interpreted, it is important that we allow appropriate time for the completion of the legal proceedings. The Member for Upper Bann asked me specific questions about the appeal and the recent comments of the judge. It would be inappropriate for me to comment until those proceedings conclude as I want to ensure that we fulfil the most robust case that we can to have the best chance of winning the appeal. It is of the utmost importance.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Minister for giving way. Will she agree that that appeal is critical to ensuring that the A5, in particular, can proceed? There seemed to be some criticism from the Opposition of the idea that that would be taken, but I commend her efforts in taking it.

Ms Kimmins: I am working very closely with the Member's colleague the DAERA Minister because we feel extremely strongly about that. The Assembly agreed the climate change legislation, and we were of the strong opinion that we had fulfilled our responsibilities under that.

I consider it prudent to reflect on any lessons learned from other major road schemes to avoid further legal challenge, of which there is a significant risk, and further delay and financial risk. As Members know, capital resources are limited, and every pound spent on avoidable legal costs is a pound that cannot be invested in improving safety or delivering infrastructure on the ground. Legal challenge carries a real cost, not only in delay but in the diversion of public funds away from delivery and safety improvements, so taking the time to get the approach right is the most responsible way to ensure the fastest delivery of the scheme.

I recognise that there have also been calls to progress individual elements of the scheme. However, when the project was developed and announced by John O'Dowd in his role as Infrastructure Minister, it was done as a single coherent package to provide that clarity and certainty and a comprehensive, deliverable solution to long-standing safety concerns. All here will agree that, because of its importance, we want to see it delivered in one go, as far as possible, rather than in bits and pieces. I continue to be fully supportive of that approach. Delivering the scheme as a single package remains the preferred way forward, subject to the necessary legal considerations being addressed.

The scheme is a mature and well-developed project. It has completed the statutory process, including public inquiry and the making of the necessary statutory orders, with only the vesting order process remaining to be made prior to construction, and it has an approved outline business case. Following the decision in July 2024 to proceed, the scheme moved into procurement phase, with preparatory procurement activity already undertaken, including the pre-qualification questionnaires in February 2025 and publication of the restricted list of tenderers in May 2025.

Let me be very clear: I can say with hand on heart that, in everything that I have done to date in my role as Minister, the decision to slow things down as a result of the judgement, particularly in relation to the A1 because it is something that is close to me, was probably the most difficult decision that I have ever had to take. I know that this is so important, but I also know that I have to face the people who have lost someone, and I have to explain to them. As John rightly said, in Civil Service terms that means nothing to you if you have lost your loved one, because there is no price that you can put on a life.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Minister for giving way. I just want to be clear: I do not doubt for one moment her or her predecessor's sincerity and commitment in trying to get the issue resolved. However, we have to be real about the issue that we face. The Minister said earlier that we needed to look at lessons learned going forward: if one of those lessons learned is that the current climate change amendments are not compatible with major road infrastructure projects, is that an issue on which the Minister and her party will join with calls to have them removed to ensure their viability in the future?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, you can take a little time at the end as well to respond.

Ms Kimmins: I appreciate that. Thank you, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

What I said in the House in the aftermath of the original ruling was that I was also focused on ensuring that we had a contingency plan in the event, because we do not know what happens once we go into a courtroom. No one knows, and it is down to interpretation. That was the first test of the climate change legislation. I remain confident that we can deliver the most robust case. In the event that we do have an unsuccessful outcome, however, I remain committed to ensuring that we find the solutions, and I will continue to do that. What those solutions may be is not something that I will get into at this stage, because we have to work through the process, but we cannot sit on our hands. We are seeing the real impact of that.

As I said, I agonised over the decision and worked with officials to find another way. I had to be honest about the reality, and taking the risk, which, I feel, is significant, of legal challenge is just something that we should not do. Not only would that be irresponsible with regard to public money and ending up in court again, but it could add further delays to the project and lead us further down the line, whereas, if we get a successful outcome on the A5, we can move at pace.

Mr Beattie: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Kimmins: If Mr Deputy Speaker permits.

Mr Beattie: I agree with my colleague for Upper Bann: I absolutely believe in your sincerity on this and do not disagree with what you have just outlined, but surely there are things that we can do now to make the roads safer. Why can we not close those gaps? Why can we not put up signage to say to people, "You know what, you're going to have to travel a little longer to be able to do a U-turn to come back on yourself"? Why can we not do something that could save lives now in the interim? Let us not make perfect the enemy of the safe.

Ms Kimmins: That is something that I have discussed with officials. I know that some interim safety measures have been done in recent years. It is my understanding that that is the maximum that can be done without having to do the upgrades that have been approved in the scheme. We continually review that and on the A5 as well. If there was a way, we would not be standing here. We also have to take that into consideration with all the other schemes that were mentioned and that are in various stages of progress but are in a similar scenario.

The most responsible, albeit the most difficult, decision to take was to await the outcome. I hope that that moves at pace, but, as I said, we are back at the Court of Appeal, and the outcome remains to be seen. I emphasise strongly, however, that my officials, officials from DAERA and our two legal teams are working incredibly hard to ensure that we deliver the most robust and strongest case possible. My priority was ensuring that this important project was not lost, reset or weakened during this uncertain period, and nor do I want to acquire any unnecessary delay or cost. Therefore, extending the restricted list, as John said, ensures that the scheme remains in a position to move forward as soon as we can do that. We are ready to go as soon as we have a green light. It gives officials the flexibility to move into the tender stage at any time during the extension.

In closing, I want to be clear about my intent. My commitment to the delivery of the A1 junctions phase 2 scheme is solid. I am equally committed to ensuring that it is delivered in a way that is safe and legally robust. Road safety remains my top priority. My determination to reduce deaths and serious injuries on our roads is unwavering, and I will continue to do all that I can not just in physical infrastructure projects but in everything that we do, so that we continually reduce those road deaths.

Work continues in the Department to progress the scheme appropriately with a focus on reducing risk and ultimately improving safety for everyone who uses the A1. I will continue to work to ensure that schemes such as the A1 are delivered in a way that stands the test of time and delivers real benefits for the public.

I respect fully the independence of the courts and the need for the legal process to conclude. However, it is also important to recognise that the ongoing appeal has wider implications for the delivery of major road schemes. A positive and clear resolution would provide the certainty needed for projects such as the A1.

I thank Members for giving me the opportunity to, hopefully, give clarity as to why we are where we are. Whilst I appreciate the remarks about my sincerity, it is not about me: it is about the families, the people and those in the future who will use that road daily. I hope that we can remain united in our efforts to deliver the scheme and that that will be done sooner rather than later.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, thank you.