Official Report: Monday 13 April 2026

Mr Speaker: I have received a letter of resignation from Gary Middleton as a Member of the Assembly for the Foyle constituency. I pass on our best wishes to Gary in the circumstances of his resignation; I know that he has appreciated the support that he has received from across the House.

I was informed by the Chief Electoral Officer that Mrs Julie Middleton had been returned as a Member of the Assembly for the Foyle constituency. This morning, Julie signed the undertaking and the Roll of Membership and entered her designation in my presence and that of the Clerk/Chief Executive. She has now taken her seat. I welcome her to the Assembly and wish her every success.

Mr Speaker: Stephen Dunne has been given leave to make a statement on Rory McIlroy's back-to-back Masters victories that fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. The usual rules apply to other Members who wish to be called.

Mr Dunne: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I congratulate Mr Rory McIlroy on his incredible success last evening in securing back-to-back Masters triumphs. It was a true masterclass and, across the world, something that we in Northern Ireland can be very proud of. It was his sixth majors triumph, and he joins only three other players in the history of golf in winning back-to-back Masters. He joins true golfing icons Jack Nicklaus, Tiger Woods and Sir Nick Faldo in that established Masters club.

It really is a very special achievement. Following record-breaking Grand Slam success just last year, winning back-to-back Masters is truly incredible. Rory has shown unbelievable resilience, dedication and skill and is a real inspiration to all. People of all ages can get behind Rory McIlroy, and that defines what Northern Ireland is all about: pride and passion and something that we can all truly get behind.

There is great pride in my constituency today, including in Holywood, the town that Rory is proud to call "home". Across North Down, Northern Ireland and, indeed, the world, people call him one of their own. His parents, Gerry and Rosie, can also be proud, as can the wider McIlroy family, who are all involved and are rightly very proud of Rory. It is also worth congratulating Harry Diamond on his role as trusted loyal caddie and childhood friend. There is real sentimental value in having somebody so close to share the special success.

It can now truly be said that he is one of the greatest if not the greatest ever sports stars from Northern Ireland. Around the world, we have a proud record of punching well above our weight in many sports. Whether in football, motor sports or the Olympics, we see names from here that are now iconic around the world, such as George Best, Joey Dunlop and Dame Mary Peters. Rory McIlroy is proudly right up there with them. He is relatively young, and I am confident that there is more major success to come. I trust that, one day, we will be able to congratulate him by giving him his rightful title of "Sir Rory McIlroy". Congratulations to Rory McIlroy: a true Masters champion and a hero to everyone in Northern Ireland.

Mrs Mason: I also wish to mark the truly historic sporting achievement of Rory McIlroy, who has become a back-to-back Masters champion. It is not just another win; it is a legacy. Rory is only the fourth person in history to win back-to-back Masters titles, placing him alongside the greatest that the game has seen. It is fair to say that we all thought that last year was special, but this win has sealed the deal. We were all behind our own, across the island, as we cheered on both Rory McIlroy and Shane Lowry, willing them on at every step of the way in Augusta: from the fairways at Holywood Golf Club, where the atmosphere was absolutely electric as spectators followed every shot, to living rooms across the country and, in fact, the world. I admit that even I was peering out from behind my sofa as we were all on that journey with him.

To go to the Masters, finally claim that green jacket and then come back and defend it under that pressure takes something extraordinary. Let us be honest: it was not handed to him. With Scheffler clipping at his heels, he had to fight for it. At one point in the final round, it looked as though it might slip away. The mark of a true champion is not perfection, however, but how they respond when things go wrong, and Rory McIlroy showed exactly why he belongs among the greats of the game. For young people who were watching from home, particularly across the North, it really matters, because it shows that, no matter where somebody comes from and what setbacks they face along the way, they can, with hard work, belief and determination, reach the top. For all of us, it is a reminder of how sport can be so powerful: it does not just entertain; it inspires and unites people and gives them something to believe in. Today, we recognise not just a victory but a moment in history that will be remembered for years to come. We say with pride, "Well done, Rory".

Ms Egan: I recognise the monumental and continued sporting achievements of Rory McIlroy, a Holywood man who has secured the almost unheard of feat of back-to-back Masters victories. Rory is only the fourth person to achieve that acclaim, cementing his status as a household name across the world. It was made all the sweeter by the fact that his parents, Rosie and Gerry, were present to witness their son reclaim his green jacket. Anyone who watched the news coverage will know that Rory's parents were not in attendance last year when he first won the Masters and became the sixth player in history to complete the career golfing Gland Slam, and it was heart-warming to see them cheering him along alongside his daughter, Poppy, and wife, Erica. From the outset, Rory has made it incredibly clear that the support of his parents is what has made his career possible, and, to all of us who watched last night, the pride glowing from them was clear.

Those from North Down and others who are familiar with Rory's story will know that his aspirations started at Holywood Golf Club. There, as its youngest ever member, he worked to become a professional golfer. It was incredibly sentimental and a touching addition to the evening to see videos and photos of current young members of the club watching Rory again take the green jacket last night. Rory's talent and his dedication to honing his skills have set an amazing example to all young sportspeople and competitors in all fields across the island. He said that he wanted to return to the Masters and win in order to show that last year was not a fluke, and that is exactly what he did. We are all immensely proud of Rory. He is an incredible ambassador for Northern Ireland and shows our young people that, if they dream big, work hard and persevere, they can achieve anything. Congratulations, Rory.

Mr Burrows: I join in the tributes to Rory McIlroy, the greatest golfer who has ever emerged from the United Kingdom and from these islands, if you want to take the broadest possible view of it, and the greatest sports star whom Northern Ireland has produced. He confirmed himself last night as belonging to the pantheon of sporting greats. Only four players have won back-to-back Masters titles: Jack Nicklaus, Nick Faldo, Tiger Woods and now Rory McIlroy, our own Holywood hero.

It is not just about Rory's excellence and the fact that he is now a living legend but about what he brings to Northern Ireland. He is an ambassador for Northern Ireland. It was wonderful to see the coverage flash between the Masters and Holywood Golf Club, and I understand that those pictures went out on the American networks also. Rory has put Northern Ireland on the golfing map. We have had some great champions from Northern Ireland, such as Darren Clarke and, of course, Graeme McDowell, but no one has quite captured the public imagination like or had the success of Rory McIlroy. This country should build on that success and become the tourist destination of choice for golf across the world. The Executive should be calling for things such as a reduction in VAT for the hospitality and tourism sector to capitalise on the interest that there is in Northern Ireland as a tourist and golfing destination.

One of the things about Rory McIlroy is his humility. He puts his success down largely to his parents: for the sacrifice that they made at the start of his career, for their support and for what they had to give up to take him around and fund his success. That is a powerful message for us all about the impact that we can have on the lives of others by supporting and inspiring them to fulfil their dreams.

Rory McIlroy is at the pinnacle of his sport. He is a legend and will be one for ever. We are proud that he is from here. He is a lesson to us all in how we should promote Northern Ireland and value those who give us the inspiration and the support to get where we are. I pay tribute to Rory McIlroy. I look forward to his winning more majors and achieving, for the first time, a hat-trick of Masters wins next April. Well done, Rory.

Mr McNulty: It is hard to believe that two young men and best friends, Rory McIlroy and Harry Diamond, who were born and bred less than 5 miles from this place stepped on to the eighteenth green yesterday to win back-to-back Masters championships. It is absolutely incredible. I congratulate Rory McIlroy, who has made history by winning a second Masters title. It feels as though we have all grown up with Rory. I recall watching him as a youngster on 'Kelly' chipping golf balls in through the open door of a washing machine and being mesmerised by it.

Rory is no stranger to success. We all know that, by the age of 25, he had won three of golf's four major championships: the US Open, the PGA Championship and the British Open. He rose to the rank of number-one golfer in the world. In 2025, he took home his first Masters title, making him the sixth man to sweep the board at the four major tournaments. With his incredible skill, determination and drive, Rory has now gone and done it again, becoming the fourth golfer to win the Masters in consecutive years and defend his title. That is an outstanding achievement, with the North being represented on a global stage. Rory, you have made this island proud. I wish you luck with your continued hard work and wonder what you can achieve next.

Rory is an important role model for kids. He spoke openly and emotionally yesterday about having and chasing a dream. What an extraordinary message that is for young people. His humility and down-to-earthness is also extraordinary. I hope that the Assembly will formally recognise Rory McIlroy's achievement and write to him. I hope that it will also write to Harry Diamond about his achievement, because what both men have done is extraordinary.

Mr Gaston: Rory McIlroy's win in Augusta last night is another feather in Northern Ireland's cap on the world sporting stage. Rory's success in the Masters, not once, but twice in a row, has cemented his place as one of the all-time greats, not just in golf but in the world of sport.

There used to be talk about the challenge that the US Masters was for him, as it was the elusive title that had denied him a career grand slam. That was put to bed last year, and, last night, he became the fourth ever back-to-back champion, which is a legacy-defining moment for him. To do it in front of his parents, his wife, Erica, and his young daughter, Poppy, is a moment that I have no doubt will live long in the memory of our proud Ulsterman, and he will cherish it forever.

I noticed in the press that Rory said that he had waited for a victory in the Masters for many years. When someone says that, you could be forgiven for thinking that he is in the twilight of his golfing career, but not Rory McIlroy. At the tender age of 36, he has many more years of golf ahead of him in what has already been an inspirational career.

It is a special moment for Rory McIlroy and his family. I send him warm congratulations and look forward to his further success on the green for many more years to come, and, more importantly, his continuing to inspire the next generation of home-grown golfers. Well done, Rory McIlroy.

Ms Sugden: Like others, I recognise Rory's extraordinary achievement in a consecutive Masters win. It is no small thing; it is sustained excellence on one of the world's biggest stages in sport. It is something that we in Northern Ireland can all be incredibly proud of because that is what we do: we consistently produce people who compete at the very highest levels and succeed. For a small place, we do more than hold our own, and it is often said that we punch well above our weight. It is not just in golf; it is right across sports and communities. In my constituency, Olympic champion Hannah Scott will be awarded the freedom of the borough this weekend, which reflects not just her success but the hard work and determination behind it and the example that she has set for others. We also see success at the grassroots level. Coleraine Ladies Hockey Club just won the Senior Cup championship, and that is not insignificant because it shows the strength of local clubs, the role of volunteers and the commitment of the players who give their time week in, week out. The foundations matter because that is where confidence is built and talent is nurtured.

We spend a lot of time in the Chamber talking about what is not working, and it is our job to do so, but it is not the full story of Northern Ireland. There is another story of ability, ambition and achievement. Too often, Northern Ireland is talked down; too often, the focus is only on the challenges, but these moments remind us that we are capable of far more. We are not just getting by; we are succeeding, and we are doing it on a global stage. However, what do we do with that? Success like that does not just happen by accident; it is supported by the right opportunities, the right investment and the right encouragement at the right time. If we are serious about building on it, it needs to be reflected in how we think about sport, facilities and the access that we give to young people so they can see the future that Rory saw for himself. We have the talent, the people and the potential, and we should be a bit more confident about saying that.

Congratulations to Rory McIlroy for everything that he has achieved and will undoubtedly achieve in the future, but let us also recognise what it represents: a Northern Ireland that is capable, ambitious and that, when given the opportunity, can stand alongside the best in the world.

Mr Martin: I also offer my congratulations to Rory because back-to-back Masters wins do not come around very often. When you look at the names of other golfers who have succeeded, such as Nick Faldo, Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods, it puts his achievement into perspective. Rory is a native of my constituency. He comes from Holywood, and that is where he played golf. For anyone watching, we have some excellent golf courses in North Down, including Bangor Golf Club, Clandeboye Golf Club and Donaghadee Golf Club.

As others have mentioned, Rory's success has been and will continue to be an inspiration to other young golfers. I was a young golfer once. Unfortunately, I could not pitch golf balls into a washing machine, and my career never took off as Rory's did. Through the success of Rory and others, Northern Ireland punches way above its weight in sporting excellence across the globe. Rory is an incredible ambassador for our wee country and, I know, continues to be an inspiration to young golfers. He has, as others have reflected, created an amazing legacy for himself. I hope that it will inspire other young golfers to follow in his footsteps.

Mr Honeyford: I sat last night with tears of joy, and, today, I am thankful that it was not as late as other nights when I have watched Rory. I take a moment to recognise the extraordinary achievement of Rory McIlroy and the extraordinary ambassador that he is for Northern Ireland and this island. What he has done on the global stage is simply remarkable. It is not just about the winning and his performance but about how he carries himself. His humility, professionalism and quiet confidence speak volumes about him, his family and where he comes from.

When Rory steps on to a course anywhere in the world, we all step on with him to support him. He has a worldwide fan base of hundreds of millions. We saw that last night: as soon as he is there, the crowds are screaming. Anybody who was at the Open in the summer will have seen that. The crowds that follow him when he goes round are incredible. In the moment, the world is not seeing just Rory and amazing golf; it is seeing a little bit of this place. The impact that he has made for Northern Ireland cannot be overstated. Golf tourism here is already worth tens of millions to our economy and supports jobs, businesses and communities across society. Moments like this help us to grow that even further. They put us on a map that no strategy document can do.

For many of us, it gets personal, because family and friends come into the celebration. I have lost count of the number of times that I have sat up with my son watching Rory compete and willing him on, sharing those moments, whether Rory has won or suffered the lows of losing. Those are memories that last, and that is the power of sport. It brings us together — all communities, backgrounds and generations — and inspires us. It shows that not everything needs to be political and that sometimes we can just celebrate; sometimes we can just say, "Well done". Rory represents the new Northern Ireland, the new North or whatever you are comfortable calling it that is inclusive and shared, confident and open and incredibly resilient and comfortable in its own skin. Rory has not forgotten where he has come from and is incredibly proud of it. That is the story of this place at its best, and it is a story that Rory tells and that we all need to tell, because it is not about us: it is about him. I simply say, "Congratulations, Rory, from all of us. You have made us all proud".

Mr Buckley: Northern Ireland has excelled on many fronts. It is a pioneer in global development and technologies across the world. However, there has been no greater export than our sporting prowess and our local talent leading on the world stage, flying the flag for our wee country to a global audience. I watched the Masters with sheer joy and pride as, uncharacteristically, Rory McIlroy led from the front on the first day. On the second day, when he was sitting on six under, we thought that it was simply a matter of bringing it home, only to get the cold sweat — probably like many — as the six-shot advantage started to disappear and other serious golfers started to enter the stage and come up close. However, Rory McIlroy held his nerve, and, as the worldwide audience talked about the Northern Ireland grit that brought about that Augusta glory, we can all share in that success.

Rory has joined a specific club of absolute legends of the world game: Tiger Woods, Jack Nicklaus, Sir Nick Faldo, who are all double Masters winners. That is not an easy feat for anybody, let alone a wee man from Northern Ireland, which has 1·8 million people. He was on the world stage, leading from the front, with his parents there to watch him as he brought home his second green jacket in consecutive years.

We will never know how much work has gone on behind the scenes over so many years and how many sacrifices have been made to get Rory to where he is today, but his family knows. I was so proud to watch on the Sky Sports broadcast, as it went from live scenes at Augusta to live scenes at Holywood Golf Club, the local talent and the local pride and to see how many of the next generation Rory inspires day by day. We have world-class golf courses, world-class golfers and a world-class pipeline of talent to continue to put this wee country above and beyond any of its contemporaries and much larger countries.

Thank you, Rory McIlroy; we wish you well for the future.

Mr Speaker: Members, this morning, there were six requests for Matters of the Day or questions for urgent oral answer relating to different aspects of energy costs. Therefore, I selected a Matter of the Day that was more generic to give the House the opportunity to discuss the relevant issues, as there was clearly a demand among Members. I will give latitude to enable all Members who tabled questions or Matters of the Day to discuss the issues in their requests. I am also willing to go beyond the normal 30 minutes, if necessary, to facilitate Members, given that there is clearly such an interest.

Jonathan Buckley has been given leave to make a statement on the impact of rising energy prices on households and businesses that fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24.

Mr Buckley: Today, we see farmers, haulage drivers, construction workers and key workers crippled by soaring fuel and energy costs, with some being pushed to the point of protest in fear for their livelihoods and future. As an Assembly, we should ask this important question: how did we get here? I must warn the public that it did not happen by accident; rather, it is the result of political choice — a choice made by consecutive Conservative and Labour Governments to put targets before people, ideology before reality and net zero before energy security. Let us speak plainly on the matter. The tensions in Iran did not create the crisis but exposed the very vulnerability that many warned about: an over-reliance on global markets, a lack of domestic supply and a system that is too weak to cope when pressures come. The public are now paying the price.

In this country, fuel is taxed to death. Here, the taxman takes a huge slice before a single wheel is turned. Up to 55% of the pump price is tax: fuel duty, VAT and crazy green levies. There is layer upon layer, although common sense should tell you that the more you tax fuel, the more everything costs. Food costs more; transport costs more; and living costs more. Who carries that, Members? The farmer, the trucker and the family. They are the people who are paying the price of sacrificial net zero policies, even though the UK is a global emitter of some 1%.

Let us ask the question: whom are we hurting and what for? It makes zero sense. The UK sits on significant oil and gas in the North Sea, yet net zero zealots tell us that we cannot drill for it and should instead import it from countries such as Norway. It is the same sea and the same resource but with more costs, more dependence and less control.

That is not "green": it is self-inflicted harm.

It does not stop there. We have seen parties such as Alliance, Sinn Féin and the SDLP continue to champion net zero targets that are totally unrealistic and are driving farmers' costs through the roof. Housing is being held back and infrastructure delayed, all in the name of targets that are totally unachievable. They promised green, secure and cheap; we have got none of the three. We have got higher bills, greater risk and less control.

Mr Speaker: I call Colm Gildernew.

Mr Buckley: It is time for common sense. Cut fuel duty, and bin dud policies.

Mr Gildernew: It is quite bizarre to ignore the reality that the war that we are seeing has forced thousands of households and businesses to experience huge spikes in their bills. We know that the North relies heavily on home heating oil — to a much greater degree than other areas. The latest statistics show that the prices have more than doubled since the start of the illegal war. That is having a devastating impact on families and right across our society. It is having a huge effect on small businesses, working families and healthcare workers and carers who are out there using their vehicles. The British Government must revisit their decision to allocate only a shamefully inadequate £17 million to the North. They must also consider a range of other measures. The British Government need to step up to the plate and provide substantially more funding.

Having said that, I welcome the Minister for Communities' writing to me recently to acknowledge that he is responsible for and is working on a scheme to get that £17 million into people's pockets. I welcome that fact. As Chair of the Communities Committee, I will certainly work with him. We are almost a month on now since that £17 million was announced and allocated. We now need to see a scheme brought forward by the Minister for Communities with urgency to get that money into people's pockets.

Mr Honeyford: For weeks, I have been raising people's concerns about the cost of energy. My constituents feel it when they fill their oil tank, at the petrol pump and every time that they go to the shop. Right now, those costs continue to rise at an absolutely scandalous rate because of one simple truth: we are absolutely exposed to global oil and gas prices and shocks. This morning, we have heard the DUP's big idea, which is to bury our heads and rely further on oil and gas, the price of which only ever goes up. What is driving that shock? It is the reckless escalation of the Middle East conflict, driven by Donald Trump and his actions, with fuel instability driving up global oil prices and pushing inflation back on to the system. Who pays for that? It is not Donald Trump, the Governments or the oil companies but ordinary working people here.

Here is the part that people will not miss. Just weeks ago, the DUP and the Ulster Unionist Party sat with, lined up for their photographs with and cosied up to their cheerleader, Trump, busting to be seen with him and get their clicks on social media — the same Donald Trump who is now driving the decisions that are pushing up our fuel prices and hurting every family in Northern Ireland. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot stand beside the man — a deranged man who, today, compared himself to Jesus — and then come back here and complain about the price and consequences of his actions. That is not leadership: it is hypocrisy and gaslighting people. While you chase your headlines, clicks, TikTok and everything else, people here pay the price.

What should we do? We need to look to solutions. Alliance calls for the UK Government to act and to act now. We need a cut to VAT on domestic energy. We need to reduce fuel duty to ease the pressure at the pumps. The VAT rate has already gone up. By the cost of it going up, that is cost-neutral. There needs to be a rise in the windfall tax on energy companies. Again, the DUP wants to champion all the companies making massive excess profits. They need to be taxed in order to make further reductions to people's costs. We need the Minister to put targeted support in place to help struggling households. When prices spike, we cannot stand back. We must step in.

Alongside that, we need to get serious in the long term. If we do not reduce our dependence on oil and gas, that will happen, as day follows night, again and again. There will be more shocks and more pressure on our own working people. Yes: let us talk about the cost of living, but let us be honest about what is driving it and not gaslight people. Let us stop the distractions, focus on what will actually help people and bring forward action to help people now and in the long term, because people out there deserve better than this.

Ms D Armstrong: We have seen the headlines over the past weeks, and, from speaking to people in my constituency, I know only too well how frustrated they are and how sick of empty words they are. People feel so frustrated and let down that they have taken to demonstrating and protesting against rising costs, and it is clear that they cannot and will not take any further increases.

Those rising costs are putting businesses and households alike under crippling pressures. The reality in Fermanagh and South Tyrone is that contractors who rightfully secured lucrative contracts in Belfast, Dublin and further afield now face rising, punitive costs in their daily travel to carry out their work. Energy prices rose suddenly, and it now seems that they will continue to rise, so the question that people are asking is simple: when does it stop? As legislators, we must take a stand and make it clear to Westminster that it is unsustainable and that there must be an intervention.

With oil prices set to rise above $100 a barrel, if the proposed blockade of Iranian ports goes ahead, what will we do? With the average price of diesel in the UK having now surpassed 190p per litre and households projected to be £480 worse off this year, an intervention is needed to ensure security of supply and affordable pricing. The UK's energy security remains vulnerable due to our reliance on importing large amounts of gas and oil, and I agree with Mr Buckley that we have resources that could help to offset that, but we lack the necessary control to fully secure ourselves.

National energy security has been raised continually in the Chamber, yet, ultimately, the powers to improve it rest with Westminster. Many in the Chamber will choose to point fingers or argue that the issue stems from constitutional questions, but none of that matters at this time. Our economy and our people's livelihoods are at stake. There must be more than emphatic words and speeches delivered after this Matter of the Day. While I do not endorse disruption, we must be honest about what is happening. When people can no longer afford to fuel their cars or heat their homes, frustration does not remain contained; it spills out into our roads, towns and economy, as people feel voiceless and under-represented. It is imperative that the Assembly do what it can to help our people in their time of need.

Mr Durkan: The spike in energy prices was not caused by anyone in these islands, but people here are feeling the pain and paying the price. It is baffling that Mr Buckley omitted to mention the role of his hero Donald Trump in creating and causing the crisis that is causing so much suffering to people here and across the world. We rely more heavily on home heating oil in the North. We have worse public transport, and people are therefore more reliant on their cars to do their daily business. Our agricultural sector, which is vital to our economy, is especially exposed to rising energy and input costs. People here are hit first, and they are hit hard.

In the face of that reality, what have we seen from the Executive and the UK Government? We have not seen coordination, urgency or leadership, but we have seen confusion, delay and far too much finger-pointing. Of course, we in the SDLP recognise that the Executive are not responsible for the crisis and that we are dependent on Westminster for financial firepower, but the Executive have responsibility for protecting people here. However, instead of coming together to act, parties in the Executive have spent weeks arguing among themselves about funding while people outside the Building are simply asking, "When will help arrive?". Even where funding has arrived, we have seen unacceptable inaction. Westminster provided £17 million to support home heating oil users, who are the most exposed to soaring costs. We agree with the Executive that that is nowhere near enough, but the Minister for Communities and the Executive as a whole have failed to bring forward any clear plan or detail about what they will do with that money. While households worry about how to heat their homes, that funding sits unused. That pattern of inaction is not confined to one Department; it runs right across the Government. Sinn Féin has led a campaign for a vote of no confidence in the Dublin Government. It says that the Dublin Government's response has been insufficient. If that is the case, the response of the Executive, led by Sinn Féin, has been completely non-existent.

I have brought practical proposals to a few Ministers, including to the Minister of Education to vary home-to-school transport costs, have contracts dismissed and make reasonable, deliverable interventions. At the same time, domiciliary care workers who travel from home to home to care for the most vulnerable people in our society are being hit hard by fuel costs. They are being priced out of their vital role, yet the Minister of Health has failed to support them. There has still been no meaningful intervention. It is high time that the Executive —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Durkan: — get their act together, take on board the proposals that have come from —

Mr Speaker: I call Timothy Gaston.

Mr Durkan: — us, as a constructive Opposition, and work with Westminster to deliver for people.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The ongoing situation in the Middle East is having real and immediate consequences for people here at home. Families right across Northern Ireland were already under pressure, and they are now facing rising costs for home heating oil and transport fuel. That is money coming out of people's pockets every single day.

We cannot control events in the Middle East, but we can control how we respond to them. Every increase in fuel prices delivers a windfall to the Treasury through increased VAT. More than 50% of the price of a litre of petrol goes straight to the Exchequer in tax, so while households are squeezed, while farmers face rising costs at this very important time of year as they move to plant crops and while businesses struggle to absorb higher transport costs, the Government profit. That cannot be right. It is therefore entirely logical that they reduce duty on petrol, diesel and home heating oil in order to ease the burden.

What we have is a tax system that is completely out of kilter. It punishes motorists and drives up costs across the entire economy. Higher fuel costs do not stop at the pump. Rather, they feed directly into the price of our food, our goods and our services. Too much of our energy policy is driven by ideology, particularly by the mad environmentalists who are well represented in the House. For far too long, the approach has been one that treats fuel not as an essential resource but as something to be taxed out of existence. People need to heat their homes, get to work and run their businesses, so let us deal with the reality that is in front of us.

More than half the price of fuel is tax. The Chancellor can do something about that today. If the Government are serious about helping households, the solution is simple: reduce the tax that they take before they create food shortages across the United Kingdom. As they enter the crucial planting phase, we need to ensure that our farmers are given support so that, when their crops are being harvested at the other end, they are affordable. Now is the time to act. The Government must step forward and reduce the level of VAT, and they must do so today.

Mr Carroll: Right across the island, people are talking about the price that they are paying for fuel. If we ask ourselves why fuel is so expensive and why the price has shot up, the answer is simple and straightforward. First, it is because of Trump's disastrous war on Iran, which is supported by the DUP. Trump has lost that war. Secondly, it has been caused by naked profiteering by companies, which are making a fortune from the fuel that people need in order to live and travel. I will mention one company, Nicholl Oils in Derry, whose profits doubled in the year prior to the war in Iran. People are therefore making a clean mint out of the crisis.

The Southern Government are rightly under huge pressure as a result of their having failed to act to support people who have been impacted on by price rip-offs and the surge in the cost of fuel.

Whilst we have not had the same level of protests in the North — maybe yet — about the cost of fuel, people are left scratching their head and asking what the Executive have done to support them in the face of rising prices. The truthful answer is diddly-squat.

The Executive parties have a case to answer when it comes to stagnant wages, poor quality homes and profit-making by energy companies that have done nothing to tackle the issues. Over 40% of people here are living in fuel poverty, while at least 27% of households went without heating or electricity over the past two years because they could not afford to pay their bills. That is only going to go in one direction, and the Executive have failed to tackle those issues. In my constituency of West Belfast, one in three children is living in poverty. That is, indeed, a cruel and disgraceful figure.

What needs to happen? First, we need to see energy price caps put in place. There should be limits on what companies can charge for fuel. We also need to see one-off universal payments to people who are impacted on by the crisis, so that they can navigate the storm and not go further into debt or have to dip into savings, if they have any. We need to see people's benefits raised as well in order to cope with the crisis. We need to see a rapid transition away from fossil fuels towards clean and cheap, if not free, energy supplies, so that we are not connected to that profitable but dangerous energy system.

We also need to see an end to Trump's wars. The situation is being driven by war and profiteering, and we need to make sure that, on this island, Shannon Airport and Belfast International Airport play absolutely no role in Trump's wars in the Middle East, Palestine and elsewhere.

Mrs Dillon: I am sitting here wondering whether Jonathan Buckley and the DUP think that everybody out there is stupid. I can tell you that care workers who put diesel in their cars a couple of weeks ago at half the price that they are paying now are not stupid. They know that when Donald Trump did what he did in Iran, that is when the price of diesel doubled. That absolutely had an impact, but that does not mean that that is where the solution lies. I do not think that the solution for anybody lies with Donald Trump, unfortunately. Do not come into this place and try to convince us that your support for Donald Trump and his war policies — his war on people — does not matter, because it matters to people here. [Interruption.]

It matters to the farmers, the hauliers, the care workers and those who are trying to deliver palliative care to people in their homes. It matters to all those people. It matters to people who are trying to travel to work, including teachers, nurses and doctors. Everybody is being affected by the situation. [Interruption.]

Do not come in here and try to convince us to go along with your nonsense, because that is what it is. It is utter nonsense.

Mr Buckley: Net stupid.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mrs Dillon: "Stupid" is the word; that is right. Jonathan, you need to look in the mirror. "Stupid" is the very word.

Mr Buckley: Net stupid.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mrs Dillon: The solution is absolutely around the tax. We need to see a serious financial support package from Westminster. I understand why people are frustrated and want to protest. I absolutely would not want to negate anybody's right to protest, but go and protest where you need to protest. There is no point in affecting people here, because Keir Starmer does not give one damn if we block the Ballygawley roundabout or Sprucefield roundabout. He has never cared about the people of Newry, Omagh, Coalisland or anywhere else in this place. He has made very deliberate choices that ensure that we cannot provide for the people here. He already knows that we cannot provide for them, in light of the amount of money that he has given us. He has no intention of helping people here, unless he is forced to do so. My message to people is that, absolutely, they should protest but do so where it matters. Hit Keir Starmer where it matters and do not listen to the nonsense coming from across the Chamber that the war in Iran has nothing to do with the rising price of diesel.

Mr Buckley: Sinn Féin policies.

Mrs Dillon: That is nonsensical. Let me tell you, Jonathan, nobody is convinced that you are telling the truth.

Mr Buckley: The people of Newry are not convinced by you.

Mrs Dillon: They all know that what you are saying is lies, cover-ups and nonsense. That is exactly what Phillip did a couple of weeks ago when he tried to convince people about money that was provided to the Executive that was not available to them at all. Do not let the truth get in the way of a good story. That is how the DUP rolls.

Mr McCrossan: Anyone watching the previous contributors would be in deep shock to understand that they are both from the lead parties in this disastrous Executive. Let us cut through some of the spin. As we speak, people are being hammered by soaring fuel costs, and the Executive are doing absolutely zero about it. Families are struggling to fill their cars, workers are questioning whether it is even worth going to work, while small businesses are being squeezed to breaking point. The farming community has spoken out very clearly today about the rising costs that it simply cannot absorb.

What do we get from Sinn Féin and the DUP? Zero. Nothing. Zilch. We get Punch and Judy politics, delay and excuses, no plans, no urgency and no action: just a watery letter to the British Government saying, "Please, sir, can we have some more?". It is a simple cover for inaction. They use social media as a tool to distract from the fact that they have been a disaster in government. While people are being pushed to the brink, around £100 million is sitting there untouched: £17 million for fuel support — not used, no plan, no strategy — and £81 million for electricity pressures — not used, no plan, no strategy. Let that sink in.

Whilst I have the great pleasure of representing the wonderful people of West Tyrone, I live in the border area, and I see what happens. I cross the border every day. It is non-existent. I see, on the Lifford side of the border, Sinn Féin representatives saying, "The Irish Government are terrible; they are doing nothing. Where is the support for our businesses and farmers?", while, on the Strabane side, the three MLAs and the MP say nothing. The Sinn Féin-run constituency and the Sinn Féin party that runs the Executive, having the First Minister, the Economy Minister, the Infrastructure Minister and the Finance Minister, do nothing. They are nowhere to be seen. Families cut back on the basics, workers count every penny and carers wonder how they will keep going, but what does Sinn Féin do? It points to the Brits on one side and the Irish Government on the other and says, "Nothing to see here". It says, "We want the power; we want the mandate. Please come out and vote for us", but, when it comes to it, it says, "We can do nothing for you, folks". That is the message that it is sending out.

This is an all-island economy. In the South, Sinn Féin is calling for votes of no confidence, claiming that the Irish Government are failing people. My God, call a vote of no confidence in yourselves, because you are a disaster when it comes to crisis after crisis. Sinn Féin is good at covering up the fact that, after every problem, it seems to pile one crisis on top of another and blames everyone else for the huge pile of ... behind it. That is the problem. A real crisis is happening to our people today. Rather than the Punch and Judy show that goes on in this place between the two lead partners in government, who have all the power and authority that they demand from our people at elections, it is high time that they got up, took some action, took some responsibility, got money out to the people who need it, supported our workers and families and stood with the people instead of poking each other in the eye and finding excuses for why they are so useless.

Mr O'Toole: There is not much for me to add after my colleague Daniel McCrossan was clear about the Executive's failure to take responsibility on behalf of the Northern Ireland public. Let me be clear, as Daniel McCrossan and Mark H Durkan were, about the Executive's failure to take responsibility for telling the Northern Ireland public how they want to support them. Let me also say that, number one, this is Donald Trump's war. The spike in energy prices is a result of Donald Trump's insane and reckless bombardment of Iran. The Members opposite were not just OK with that but cheered it in the Chamber a few weeks ago. Some of them, including the mover of the Matter of the Day, Mr Buckley, then went and got photographs taken with Mr Trump in the White House. [Interruption.]

Tuts are coming from the Chamber, but that is the man whose reckless and illegal bombardment has driven up energy prices and created the problem that we have today.

It is true that some of the measures would need to be paid for in part by the British Government, who, yes, need to engage, but what have we seen from the DUP and Sinn Féin, the two Executive parties, collectively today? We have seen theatrical Punch and Judy politics, deflection from their responsibilities and a refusal to take responsibility. I am not aware that, over the past fortnight, the First Minister and deputy First Minister or any other Ministers have convened an urgent meeting with, for example, farmers, hauliers, domiciliary care workers or other affected groups to ask them about the impacts on their businesses and communities and to come up with a package of support or at least to work to develop what such a package might look like, were there to be more financial support from the UK Government. Indeed, those two parties told us that they did not have the financial firepower. As the official Opposition, we said, "We back you. What scheme do you want to deliver?". They got £17 million. We agreed that it should have been more and that we wanted to see more, but it has been stuck in an Executive bank account for more than a month.

It is no use the two big Executive parties coming here, throwing digs at one another, writing letters to London, going for selfies with Donald Trump and then refusing to be honest with the public of Northern Ireland about their responsibility. That is deflection. It is one of the reasons why our politics has become broken and why people in this society do not trust those two parties to prioritise the common good, their needs, their communities, their businesses and their livelihoods. What they see is that, when it comes to a time of crisis, those parties will simply prioritise theatrical falling out and their own party political interests.

There was nothing stopping the First Minister and deputy First Minister urgently convening a meeting of affected sectors weeks ago. There was nothing stopping the Communities Minister, the Economy Minister and other Ministers coming up with a support package for home heating oil users weeks ago. There was nothing stopping them working with Translink to implement a plan for reduced transport fares. They have done none of that; they have come into the Chamber, rowed with each other and deflected. They need to work with the British Government, who have a responsibility, to support the people and businesses of this society.

Mr Brett: It is disappointing that Mrs Dillon accuses me of being a liar and then runs out of the Chamber before I have an opportunity to respond.

My, my: the truth really hurts. The facts are clear: the net zero policies that some Members have championed year after year are now coming home to roost. Mr Honeyford got very angry during his deranged rant against the DUP without stating any facts, so let us give him some facts: since the legislation was rammed through by his party, £107 million has been set aside for net zero targets. Mr Honeyford, imagine what £107 million could do for my constituents and yours. What has been the impact of that legislation? A 1% reduction in energy targets. You have the audacity to come into the Chamber and try to lecture me and my colleagues on these Benches. It is no wonder that the Ulster Farmers' Union passed a motion of no confidence in your Minister; you have no idea what you are talking about.

I have to do the Opposition's job for them. Who was it who found out that the Executive had £81 million to spend? It was not the Opposition. It was not members of the Opposition on the Economy Committee. It was left to this party to fight for the funding. Mrs Dillon said, "Oh no, the money doesn't exist" and then, "Oh yes, it does exist". It is like Punch and Judy politics. Ms Sheerin can sneer and laugh, as she does when any unionist speaks in the Chamber, but that is because the facts hurt, and Sinn Féin does not like the facts.

When Keir Starmer was elected, we were told that the Opposition, as Labour's sister party, would be in a prime place to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr Buckley: They moved seats.

Mr Brett: Yes. They moved seats to sit beside the Labour Party. I listened to the leader of the SDLP today on the radio. You would almost forget that she was elected to be a Member of Parliament, while she criticises the Assembly and the Executive. Where is the leader of the SDLP? What has she delivered while her sister party has been in government? Nothing.

We hear lectures from Sinn Féin. The people in my constituency of North Belfast are seeing prices increase at the petrol pump. Our care workers cannot afford to go to work, and people cannot get oil. Our Member of Parliament, rather than turning up and doing his job to fight for the people of North Belfast, is too busy earning tens of thousands of pounds in other employment. I and the people of North Belfast will take no lectures from you. On Thursday, the Communities Minister will bring his paper to the Executive. Let us see whether your actions match your words: give us the money to support the people of Northern Ireland.

Ms Sheerin: Today, as we return from the Easter break, the frustration and anxiety across our community is palpable. People are worrying about how they will pay their bills, how they will put fuel in their cars and how they will feed their families. They are worrying and struggling again because of war; a political choice. They watch innocents die across the world without having the bandwidth to do anything to support them because funds are so tight at home.

A political choice caused the cost-of-living crisis, and it is a political choice not to support people. The British Government could act today. They could cut fuel levies. They could put real, meaningful money into people's pockets, but what do they do? They choose once again to prioritise weapons of war over workers here by allocating an annual £13·4 billion extra to defence spending.

That is what Keir Starmer and the British Government want to do. How many cars would that put on the road? How many homes would that heat? How many people here could that support?

Members in the Chamber realise that they backed the wrong horse and stood cheerleading for Donald Trump when he once again made a reckless decision based on his ego. Instead of bickering, we should all stand united for the people whom we represent and call clearly on the British Government with one voice to support workers and families here. Every war that causes needless and senseless death and destruction across the world and leads more innocents to their death has a knock-on effect here. The working people whom we all represent and working-class communities here suffer and struggle. We have to be their voice. Time and history have taught us that the British Government do not care about people here, so we must stand united to make them do so.

Mr Brett: "One rule for thee, another for me" is the deeply concerning and persistent pattern of late: the lawlessness, double standards and failure to comply with the rules and the law by the party opposite. Time and time again, we have seen one rule applied to Sinn Féin and another imposed on the law-abiding citizens of Northern Ireland.

An illegal statue to the terrorist Bobby Sands was erected without the required planning permission: a clear breach of the rules that the public and businesses across Northern Ireland have to follow, but not Sinn Féin. Attending the official opening of that crass memorial was none other than the First Minister for "no alternative", who said that she was delighted with the statue.

Let us remember who Mr Bobby Sands was: a convicted terrorist who blew up a Protestant-owned furniture store and, being the coward that he was, fled and left his comrades who had been injured in the blast behind. Bobby Sands was no hero, yet that has not stopped Sinn Féin from trying to profiteer from his legacy, despite the pleas and claims from his family to leave the man alone.

The DUP group at City Hall have rightly called an emergency meeting of Belfast City Council to instruct that planning enforcement action is taken. The public will watch how the Alliance Party, the SDLP, the Green Party and People Before Profit vote on the issue. They expect their constituents and businesses across Northern Ireland to abide by the law, so I am sure that they will support DUP calls for enforcement against the statue.

This is not the only planning permission scandal to face Sinn Féin in recent months. Just before Christmas, the constituency of the Infrastructure Minister, who is in charge of planning in Northern Ireland, witnessed the illegal erection of a Sinn Féin billboard. Rule-keeping and abiding by the law has never been a strength of Sinn Féin, but the public expect that, when Ministers make the law, they follow it. The public also witnessed the Provo show of strength during the COVID pandemic being prioritised over people's grief. They witnessed how portraits in City Hall were destroyed at a Sinn Féin-hosted event.

Members of the party opposite may think that the law does not apply to them, but they need to think again, because my party and the people of Northern Ireland will hold them accountable.

Ms D Armstrong: I want to raise awareness of an appalling attack that happened on Easter Saturday night in Newtownbutler. Every Member of the House, regardless of tradition, background or party, should condemn it. A Church of Ireland Sunday school at Galloon parish was vandalised. Ugly, hateful, sectarian words were daubed on its walls, and items were damaged. A space dedicated to children — a place of innocence, faith and community — was left unusable and scarred. That it happened at Easter, when all Christian communities mark the death and resurrection of Christ, makes it all the more offensive. This happened in a predominantly nationalist area where the Church of Ireland community is the minority. Those people who go about their lives quietly, proudly and peacefully, asking for nothing more than to worship, to gather and to raise their children knowing the love of Jesus, and someone decided to target them. Someone decided that their presence was something to be attacked.

I want to be clear about what this is: it is not a grey area or a matter of perspective; it is sectarianism — raw, cowardly sectarianism directed at a vulnerable minority community, and it is utterly unacceptable. I am genuinely heartened that the local Catholic church was swift to condemn the attack. That is leadership. That is the kind of neighbourly decency that gives us hope, and I commend it for that unreservedly. However, I have to ask this: where are the nationalist MLAs, and where is the condemnation from those elected to represent that area? Silence in moments such as this is not neutrality; it is failure. The people of Newtownbutler — Protestant, Catholic and others — are watching, and they deserve better than silence.

The Church of Ireland people in that area have shown extraordinary restraint. They have not retaliated or inflamed the situation. They have borne this with dignity, but dignity should never be mistaken for indifference, and restraint should never be taken for weakness. Every person in Northern Ireland — every one — deserves to live free from fear, free from intimidation and free to be proud of their culture, their faith and their identity without wondering whether their place of worship will be the next target. We talk often in the Chamber about reconciliation and a shared future, but a shared future is not built with words alone. It is built on moments such as this when we choose unequivocally to stand with those who have been wronged. I call on every MLA in the House to add their voice, condemn the attack and stand with that community. If we cannot do that, what are we here for?

Mr McNulty: On Easter Sunday, Taoiseach Micheál Martin gave the oration at the graveside of a great Irishman and proud republican, Dr Rory O'Hanlon, who was laid to rest at St Mary's Church in Mullaghbawn, at the foot of Slieve Gullion in the heart of south Armagh. Rory made his home in Carrickmacross, but he was a proud Mullaghbawn native. He never forgot his roots and the people whom he grew up with. He was a loyal Armagh GAA fan throughout his life. In his home, where he reposed, there were three objects on his coffin: a family picture, an Armagh GAA woolly hat and a Mullaghbawn Cúchullain’s woolly hat. Rory was a trusted friend and mentor, and his support and counsel will be sorely missed, as will his energy, his enthusiasm and his shining integrity. I will miss that sparkle in his eyes.

Rory was a solid friend of the SDLP down through the years. Alongside his cousin the late Paddy O'Hanlon, who was a founder member of the SDLP, he worked tirelessly to ensure the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. He achieved the highest positions in political life but remained anchored in his constituency, forging a warm bond with the people of Monaghan and Cavan, whom he represented with strength and enthusiasm for more than a generation. He had time, a word and warmth for everyone whom he met.

As a gifted doctor, Rory was a caring and empathetic man who sought to improve the lives of his patients and his community. As Minister for Health, Rory made improvements to the system that benefited people in their day-to-day lives. He fought for fairness and for the marginalised, especially for children and the families of children with special needs. As Ceann Comhairle, he conducted Dáil business with fairness and evenness of hand, which was appreciated by all sides of the House.

I express my deepest sympathy to Teresa and to the couple's children, Fiona, Rory, Ardal, Neale, Shane and Dearbhla, to their wider family, including his sister, Sister Fionnuala, to his community and friends and to his Fianna Fáil family. I measc na Naomh go raibh sé.

Ms Finnegan: Imagine this: you are 32 years of age with your whole life ahead of you, and you have a loving family, with two beautiful children, when you suddenly get the blow of a cancer diagnosis. Your mum died of breast cancer when you were 12, and the same word is now said to you. You look at your children, and you see your father's face, scared but trying to be strong. In that moment, you make the decision that you will fight this with every fibre of your body and come through it. There is quiet determination but deep fear. Then, imagine this: after two years of clear scans and believing that you had come through the worst, you are told that your cancer is back. It is stage 4 cancer, with no cure, and care that is, at best, life-prolonging and palliative. While you know that this will be the fight of your life, you never imagined that you would also be fighting a system that was supposed to have been designed with you in mind.

That is the reality: a lack of counselling at the point of diagnosis, when people need it most; being given days to make life-altering decisions, including about fertility, without the time or support to process them; no access to cold capping; cuts to support for the provision of wigs, leaving people to carry that cost themselves; and basic essentials such as PICC line covers no longer being provided, forcing people to source them to carry out the basic task of washing safely. Perhaps most concerning of all is people not being listened to, their symptoms being dismissed and their concerns being minimised. People are pushed to the point at which they feel that they have no option other than to pay privately just to be taken seriously.

While we can only imagine what that pain must feel like, for Marianne Tiernan, a woman from south Armagh aged 38, it is not about imagining, because that is her reality. Marianne has chosen to tell her story publicly so that others are not ignored in the same way. GPs have already contacted her to say that they will never again let someone leave without a referral. That tells us about the power of being heard, but people should not have to go public in order to get change. How can we accept a system in which people are forced to fight for their life and, at the same time, to fight to be heard and to fight for support and basic dignity?

It is not about blaming front-line staff, who go above and beyond every day; it is about a system that is not keeping pace with the needs of the people whom it is meant to serve. We know the pressures, and we know that there is underfunding, but that cannot become an —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Ms Finnegan: — excuse, because such things are not extras or luxuries but basics of care.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Last week, on 7 April, I attended a hugely supported and poignant parade by Lower Iveagh District Loyal Orange Lodge (LOL) No 1, and, yesterday, I attended the special service of remembrance marking the 50th anniversary of one of the most appalling and shocking attacks of the Troubles: a day on which the horror of violence was visited on the town of Dromore in my constituency of Lagan Valley and on the Herron family.

William, Elizabeth and Noeline Herron were much respected and loved. They were three good people from a family rooted in faith, hard work and service to their community in Dromore. Their family name stood not for division but for decency, kindness and the quiet dignity of everyday life, yet, on 7 April 1976, that ordinary goodness was met with an act of extraordinary evil. They were not participants in conflict; they were a mother, a father and a daughter taken by an act of terrorism that shocked not just their loved ones but the entire community.

The Provisional IRA planted an incendiary device that was designed to go off long after the shop closed, when the Herron family would be asleep upstairs. The firebomb went off at approximately 1.30 am, and, despite rescue attempts, William, Elizabeth and their daughter Noeline all perished. There is no justification for what was done: none. No cause or ideology can ever excuse the targeting of innocent men, women and children.

In the face of such loss, the Herron and Bingham families have shown something remarkable: they have refused to allow that evil to define the memory of those whom they loved. They have insisted, rightly, that William, Elizabeth and Noeline be remembered not for how they died but for how they lived, in love and with humanity.

Their legacy is as business people, quiet people, good people and Christians who loved and who were loved deeply. We must never forget the terrible events and must always remember the people behind the headlines.

Fifty years on, we must confront uncomfortable truths, including that, for many families such as the Herrons, there are still unanswered questions and that justice, in its fullest sense, has not been done. Too many families have never seen justice. In this case, there were convictions, but, just four years into the sentences of two of those who were convicted, the royal prerogative of mercy was used without any consultation or explanation. I wrote to the Prime Minister, today, to ask for a re-examination in order to give the family the answers that they never got over those 50 years.

Terrorism did not win. The community of Dromore endured because families such as the Herrons endured. Today, we remember three lives that were taken too soon. We honour William, Elizabeth and Noeline Herron. We must ensure that their story is never forgotten.

Mr O'Toole: Earlier today, we joined in celebrating the extraordinary success of Rory McIlroy in the sporting field. I wish also to share some words of profound sadness about someone of the same age who was lost from the arts community not just in Northern Ireland but on the island of Ireland: a man named Michael Campbell, whose stage name was Michael Patrick.

Michael was diagnosed with motor neurone disease early in 2023. He was an extraordinary artist and an exceptionally talented man who bore his illness with extraordinary bravery. He, in a sense, used his extraordinarily difficult diagnosis and affliction to create the most profound art, including a stage show called 'My Right Foot', which finished just a few months ago, and an extraordinary performance as Richard III in a version of the play that was adapted to specifically reflect Michael's condition. For anyone who saw that play, it was, I think, a truly awe-inspiring and seminal performance. I was not fortunate enough to be able to see it, but my wife and lots of other people whom I know were unbelievably affected by Michael's performance.

Michael Patrick was an extraordinary artist. From my constituency of South Belfast, he made his way to Cambridge University, where he shone in the Footlights, and then pursued a career in the theatre, including with the Royal Shakespeare Company. He then worked with another talented playwright from this part of the world, Oisín Kearney, to develop memorable shows, including 'My Left Nut' and a range of other funny, vivid and inspiring pieces of art. Michael had an extraordinary future on the stage, an extraordinary lifetime of artistic endeavour to pursue and, in a sense, a gift to bestow on us all. It is an extraordinary tragedy that he was not able to live out the rest of that life, but, in the years in which we had him, he gave an extraordinary gift to everybody. The British and Irish theatre scenes have paid extraordinary tribute to Michael's contribution.

His funeral is happening literally now, and he will be buried later today. His wife, Naomi, and his entire family, who live in south Belfast, have had a profound loss, but the gift that Michael was able to give us in his short time on earth was extraordinary. Let his legacy be one not just of that artistic achievement but of more research into the awful affliction that is motor neurone disease. He bore that affliction with such courage and dignity. He did lots fundraising work and other work to raise awareness of motor neurone disease, and we hope that medical research —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Matthew.

Mr O'Toole: — can tackle that affliction. Rest in peace, Michael.

Mrs Erskine: I ask for just a moment's latitude, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, because this is my first time speaking in the Chamber since the birth, in September, of my daughter, Olivia. I place on record my sincere thanks to Members from across the House for their good wishes and prayers during what was a difficult time for my family. Your support was deeply appreciated.

I rise today to condemn in the strongest possible terms the attack on the Sunday school building at Galloon Parish Church over Easter weekend. This was a completely reprehensible incident. The place serves families and the wider community and should never have been targeted in such a way. It was especially distressing given that the incident took place over Easter, which is the most sacred time in the Christian calendar. What members of the congregation found was a vandalised hall, paint strewn across the windows and offensive slogans such as "Up the 'RA" — on a board depicting the Ten Commandments, ironically. Unsurprisingly, it has caused deep anger and hurt in the community of Newtownbutler. Those responsible must be identified and held accountable for their actions. I encourage anyone with any information to bring that to the PSNI.

However, equally concerning is the silence from some political representatives. When places of worship are attacked, there should be no hesitation in condemning such incidents. They should be condemned clearly and without ambiguity. Perhaps Sinn Féin was too busy commemorating IRA terrorists over Easter to notice, but the community has taken note. When communities are hurting, such silence speaks volumes. People across Northern Ireland deserve better than selective condemnation. We have seen attempts in our society to excuse, minimise and glorify acts linked to violence and terrorism. That is why efforts to change that, such as Arlene Foster's House of Lords amendment on criminalising the glorification of terrorism, are important. Arlene has faced abuse for doing that. In fact, she received a message that said that the IRA should have finished her dad off. Think about that for one second. If we are serious about building a peaceful and respectful society, we must also be serious about rejecting narratives that romanticise violence and terrorism, particularly for our younger generations.

I place on record my support for the minister, the congregation and the families connected to the church. It has long been a source of strength in that community, and I have no doubt that it will continue to be so. Attacks on places of worship have no place in the Northern Ireland of today, and the House should stand united in saying so.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Deborah, I gave you extra time, given that you are back — I welcome you back — but no one else should have that liberty, because they did not have a baby in the same circumstances. Nick — no pressure — you are next.

Mr Mathison: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. That is duly noted.

Members across the House will be aware of the work of the charity TinyLife, which supports children who are born prematurely and their families across Northern Ireland. Since 2022, as an outworking of the 'A Fair Start' report, the Department of Education has funded the TinyStart programme, which has provided vital interventions to support that cohort of children across Northern Ireland. The 'A Fair Start' report clearly highlighted the fact that babies born prematurely are at increased risk of experiencing educational disadvantage and need bespoke support to ensure that they can fulfil their potential. The programme has been funded to ensure that those supports are provided to families from birth through to school age. The programme includes home-based interventions, with a focus on upskilling parents as the child's first educators in the home. The figures indicate that around 50% of extremely premature babies are likely to have a disability and that 40% of premature babies are likely to have a developmental delay of some kind. That support at the early stages is therefore vital to give them the very best chance of thriving and succeeding in education.

We talk much in this place about the need for early intervention, and this programme is surely a prime example of where we have done that very well and consistently over a number of years. It was therefore incredibly concerning to learn that there was no guarantee of the funding being continued in the 2026-27 financial year. By mid-March, in response to questions that I had submitted, the Minister was still advising that he could make no commitment to even temporarily fund the project while budgets were being finalised. In an update, we have been told that temporary funding to the end of June had been agreed at the very last minute. Regrettably, that news came at a late stage, at the start of the Easter holidays as staff were going off on leave, many of whom had already been put on notice and had no certainty about the continuation of their roles.

Earlier communication and decision-making about the funding for the project could have given the charity a little bit more certainty and time to plan. I put on record that the temporary extension is welcome, but I urge the Minister to do all that he can to secure the relatively small budget that is needed for the remainder of this financial year to give the charity certainty and, most importantly, to ensure that the vital early intervention work can continue for the group of children who really need the support.

It is critical that we do not pay lip service to early intervention, and we should prioritise it when it is being delivered effectively. Small sums of money spent early can undoubtedly save a much higher spend when the children require more intensive intervention down the line. I hope that the Minister can find a way — if required, in partnership with colleagues from across the Executive, particularly the Health Minister — to commit to ongoing support for the vital TinyStart programme.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Cheryl and Timothy will be the last Members to make a statement. To make that sure you both get in, I will give you two minutes each because that is all the time that we have left.

Ms Brownlee: This week, we will finally see the launch of the sensory hub cubbie at the children's emergency department at the Royal Victoria Hospital, and it is important that it comes during Autism Awareness Month. It is a moment that has been some time in the making, and I pay particular tribute to Erin McAllister, who contacted every single MLA, councillor and MP in the country about her petition that brought the issue to the fore. It is incredible what her work has achieved. It has been a pleasure to support the campaign and to bring the concerns to the Assembly, and it shows that the voices of those families have been heard and acted on. I was also pleased that there was full agreement about the issue in the House, and it shows what we can achieve and the difference that we can make when we work together. I place on record my sincere thanks to the Little Heroes charity, which has worked tirelessly to secure the vital funding that was required to create the space. The dedication of Little Heroes has enhanced healthcare environments for children, and the project will make a massive difference to everybody in Northern Ireland.

The cubbie is an innovative system that provides an immersive space that is designed to specifically support children who may feel overwhelmed in busy clinical settings. It uses light, sound and interactive features to create a calming environment that helps regulate sensory input. That matters so much for our families who visit A&E, which can be an overwhelming and frightening experience. We are enabling better communication, effective treatment and a more compassionate standard of care, and that will make a difference for children to stay in A&E to receive the treatment that they need.

I am proud that we have all supported the initiative, and we continue to advocate for the expansion of such vital services across the whole of Northern Ireland to ensure that every child receives the understanding, dignity and care that they so deserve.

Mr Gaston: On 7 April 2025, during Members' statements, I appealed to the Education Minister to review the pupil allocation numbers (PAN) for non-statutory playgroups in North Antrim. Some 12 months later, the issue has not been dealt with. Many non-statutory preschools across Northern Ireland had to use their reserves last year. The future of non-statutory preschools is being put at risk due to the Education Authority's (EA) policy of basing pupil allocation numbers on the previous year’s intake. That has created a hamster wheel whereby if any non-statutory playgroup has a low intake year, there is no pathway for it to rebuild its numbers back to a sustainable level, regardless of its five or 10-year average intake. The policy is reckless, and it is putting the non-statutory playgroups at risk.

What does that mean in real terms? The 2025-26 intake for Taylorstown Cross-Community Pre-school dropped to 14 due to a low birth rate, and it survived last year by using its reserves. The playgroup has 19 first preference applications this year, and, without immediate intervention, it will not be able to reopen its doors in September due to a five-place shortfall. Cloughmills Early Years has only 10 allocated places, and 19 pupils have listed it as their first preference. We have a scenario where although parents who want their children to attend that setting are paying for them to attend pre-preschool, they cannot then get an EA-funded preschool place.

I understand that the Minister has received a letter on behalf of 46 individuals from preschools requesting an urgent meeting to discuss the issue. The Minister needs to take the issue on board and either fund the shortfall in many of those non-statutory preschools or increase their PAN.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Timothy.

Mr Gaston: Otherwise, they will not be here to open their doors for next year's intake, come September.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That ends Members' statements.

Mr Sheehan: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I want to raise an issue under Standing Order 65. It relates to an incident on 23 March 2026 during topical questions, when the Minister of Education was asked whether he had ever been accused of bullying. His answer was:

However, on 27 March, the Minister released a written statement that confirmed that he had been accused by a civil servant of bullying. I ask you to ask the Speaker to direct the Minister to come in and correct the record and to take whatever other action is required as a result of the very serious matter of misleading the Assembly.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Pat.

Mr Gaston: On a point order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I will deal with this point of order first, Timothy, if you do not mind.

I will refer the matter to the Speaker. I cannot give a ruling on it now, but I certainly will refer it. I advise you to chase it up with the Speaker's Office if you do not get a response fairly soon.

Timothy, point of order.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. During Matters of the Day, the Member for Upper Bann referred to Mr Buckley as "stupid". The parliamentary bible, Erskine May, notes:

Will you review Hansard to see whether Mrs Dillon's comments fell foul of that ruling?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mrs Dillon is not from Upper Bann; she is from Mid Ulster. Erskine May is an aid. I think that you are raising a point under Standing Order 65. As I said to the Member regarding the previous point of order, when he quoted the correct Standing Order, I will refer the matter to the Speaker's Office. As I advised that Member, I advise you to go to the Speaker's Office if you do not get a response.

Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): I beg to introduce the Petroleum Exploration and Licensing (Repeal) Bill [NIA 31/22-27], which is a Bill to repeal provisions in the Petroleum (Production) Act (Northern Ireland) 1964 relating to petroleum exploration and licensing; and for connected purposes.

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. I call the Minister to open the debate on the motion.

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

Before I speak to the motion, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, and with your indulgence, I take the opportunity to extend my best wishes to Gary Middleton as he steps down from his role as an MLA. Until recently, he was the Deputy Chair of the Economy Committee, and, in the almost 10 years in which I have been in the Assembly, I have always had a good working relationship with Gary. I wish him well as he continues his recovery. I also wish Julie Middleton the very best in her new role.

I seek the Assembly's approval for the Disqualified Directors Compensation Orders (Fees) Order (Northern Ireland) 2026. Company failure has consequences: suppliers can be left out of pocket; employees might not get paid; and customers may lose deposits. The vast majority of company failures are due purely to commercial misfortune, but there is a small minority of cases in which the directors have contributed to the failure by misconduct or incompetence or by abusing the protections that trading with limited liability offers. In such cases, my Department's insolvency service will apply to the High Court for the disqualification of directors who are guilty of abusing their position. Whilst that protects the public from directors being able to set themselves up in business again, it does nothing to recompense those who have lost out. As a result, legislation has been made that enables my Department to apply to the High Court for orders requiring disqualified directors to pay compensation to creditors who have suffered loss as a consequence of their misconduct. Alternatively, to avoid the cost and expense of court proceedings, my Department can accept undertakings from disqualified directors that they will pay the necessary compensation.

Whilst the primary legislation is in place, it can be used only once two linked pieces of subordinate legislation have been made and are in operation. The first, which has been made and is in operation, sets out the procedures to apply within the High Court for a compensation order to be made. The second is the order before you today, which will introduce a new fee to be charged by my Department to cover the cost of distributing moneys received from disqualified directors. A compensation order or undertaking can take the form of a requirement to make a payment to my Department for the benefit of creditors. In such cases, my Department will have to distribute the money that it receives to the creditors, which will be carried out by staff in my Department's insolvency service. As a result, there will be an administrative cost to the Department, because time will have to be set aside for existing staff to do the work. There will also be expenses, such as the cost of postage.

The order that I now ask the Assembly to approve is to make provision for a charging fee to recover those costs. The fee is to be satisfied out of the sums received from the directors prior to any payment being made to creditors. Its amount is to be calculated on the basis of time spent by staff, with the hourly rates by grade of staff set out in a schedule to the order, plus any necessary disbursements or expenses properly incurred. The order was made on 11 February 2026 with the concurrence of the Department of Finance. However, it must have the approval of the Assembly before it can come into operation. The order has been agreed with the Economy Committee, and I informed my Executive colleagues about it on 5 December last year.

The adoption of the order will allow the full implementation of measures aimed at compensating creditors who have been the victim of unscrupulous company directors. Accordingly, I recommend that it be approved by the Assembly.

Mr Brett (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Economy): Before addressing the motion, I thank the Minister for her kind words about and tribute to the former Deputy Chair of the Committee, Gary Middleton. The Minister's words are indicative of her good nature and the manner in which she treats colleagues. I thank her for that. I congratulate Julie Middleton on her elevation to this place. For the benefit of elements of the media, her name is "Julie Middleton", regardless of whom she may or may not be married to. The media would not have reported a man's marital status, but that is a point for another day.

As Chair of the Committee, I recommend that the Assembly support the statutory rule (SR) today. The Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 allows the Department to apply to the court for an order requiring a disqualified director to compensate creditors for losses incurred as a result of conduct for which he or she has been disqualified. That Act requires the disqualified director to pay an amount to the Department for the benefit of the creditors. The Department must then distribute the compensation to the creditors, and that is done by the insolvency service. The SR before us enables the Department to charge a fee for making the distribution. That is calculated on the basis of time spent by staff, and the relevant hours are set out in the regulations. The rule was considered by the Committee in February 2026 and was unanimously supported. I recommend that the Assembly approve it today.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Chair for his support for the motion, and I thank the Committee for its consideration of the SR. I have nothing further to add to the debate, so I commend the motion to the House.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Before we move on to the next item of business, I, too, wish Gary Middleton a speedy recovery. I wish Julie all the very best. It is great to see another woman in the Assembly: the more the merrier. I commend Gary for his absolute bravery in speaking out about something that either we have experienced ourselves or our family members and those whom we hold dear have experienced. Pass on my regards to him.

We are waiting for the Minister of Education, so I ask Members to take their ease for a minute.

Mr Baker: I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has not allocated any time limit to the debate.

Danny, I call you to open the debate.

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

I start by thanking the Speaker's Office and the Bill Office for all the support that they have given me over the past two years to get the Bill to this stage. I could not have done it without the help of Trevor and Barbara in particular, and Frank and Stephanie were absolutely brilliant. Their expertise has been second to none, especially for me as a new MLA. Thanks very much.

As I said, the Bill has been two years in the making. I wish that I did not have to bring such legislation to the House. I would have much preferred the Minister of Education to have reinstated the holiday meal payments when we came back to the Assembly and he took office. The Bill would amend the Education and Libraries Order 1986. Its policy intent is clear: it aims to support 90,000 children who are entitled to free school meals. It would cover the cost of what a parent would have to pay for a school meal at this time. I am happy to work with everyone in the Chamber to strengthen the Bill if they feel that that is necessary. If the Minister would like to have even more input, I am happy to work with him. In my previous contribution in the Chamber, I said that I would draw a line in the sand and work tirelessly with everyone here to deliver for those who need it most. I will say this, however: if Members stand up today and say that the Bill is poorly drafted or rushed or that it does not solve poverty, they will be taking a negative and cowardly approach. Today, Members of the Assembly have an opportunity to work together to play a role in ending child poverty. Will the Bill alone end child poverty? No, it will not, but it is one piece of a wider puzzle.

The debate is not new to the Chamber. Holiday hunger payments were in place during COVID but were stopped because they could be cut. That is what I am looking to change. Since I have been an MLA, there have been a number of debates on motions calling for the payments to be reinstated. The motions all passed without a Division. Evidence suggests that some children can be weeks or months behind their classmates when they return to school after the holidays. Why is that the case? It is because they are hungry and malnourished. The links between deprivation and underachievement are well known. Fifteen per cent of children here live in absolute poverty, with one in three children affected by a lack of food. We must ask this question of the Minister: how can children learn when they are hungry?

The reality in our schools is that teachers run breakfast clubs, wash uniforms and buy food out of their own pockets, but neither they nor our community and voluntary sector and youth clubs, which do a lot of heavy lifting in our communities, can fight child poverty alone. I have spoken about this before: I have been involved in youth work for a number of years. The Lagmore Youth Project in my constituency ran a programme a number of years ago, which was about ending holiday hunger, although the children did not know that. We had the use of a park, thanks to Belfast City Council, and the scheme was supported through different funding mechanisms. I even brought my children to it, because it was so much fun to engage with and be part of. However, it was only possible because people volunteered and people like me were there to support it — the funding is not always there.

Something became clear very early on in the project about a number of children, but one child in particular sticks in my mind, because he was the same age as my youngest. He was filling his wee pockets with food. Why was he filling his wee pockets with food? There was not enough food at home over the summer, and he had an older sister. The older sister was a teenager, so she was not going to come to the wee camp that we were running. It is a sad indictment of society that a child of that age had to really think about food security. That wee child had all the worries in the world. My child did not and does not. That really should not be the case. While we were able to identify that family and get more support to them, that only happened by pure chance because that scheme was running. I want that story to stick in people's minds today because I know that a raft of statistics will be pushed out. Those will just be numbers on a piece of paper, but it is about making a real-life impact, and we have a chance to do so today. It is about taking a step forward to help 90,000 children right across the North and all our communities. That is why it matters.

Children who live in poverty experience poorer physical and mental health, lower educational attainment and reduced lifetime opportunities. Those are facts. The Bill will help improve children's concentration levels, because they will come to school ready to learn, not hungry. The Bill will play a role in raising our most disadvantaged children's educational attainment. That is what I mean. I go back to that story about the wee child who was the same age as my youngest. How can we expect that child to go into school to prepare for a transfer test and go up against children who are being tutored for that test? It is just not a fair system. The system is broken, and we have to play our role, alongside our community and voluntary sector, teachers and school leaders. That is why the Education Department has a huge role to play in ending child poverty. In my view, it is the very least that it can do.

As I said, the Bill is only one piece of the puzzle. The cost-of-living crisis is crippling families. The Bill targets the most disadvantaged in our communities. In my child's school, 50% of children receive free school meals, and that is the case in many schools, be they in Foyle or in West Belfast on the Falls Road or the Shankill. I want to see the Assembly taking forward other initiatives to end child poverty. One example of that could be universal free school meals. The recent rise in the cost of school meals is having a detrimental impact on families across the North. We have heard that at the Education Committee and in all our offices.

Of course, any interventions and legislation that are aimed at tackling child poverty will have a cost. I am not shying away from that, but I ask all of you this: what is the case for not doing it? Will the Bill have ramifications for the Minister and his priorities? Yes, it will. The Bill is projected to cost, on average, £21 million a year over the next 10 years, based on 100% uptake. The present uptake is in and around 80%, so, if it stays that way, the Bill will technically not cost that amount. However, I hope that the payments will encourage more to take up free school meals.

While £21 million sounds like a lot, in reality, it is around 0·6% of the Education budget. That is a very small proportion of the Education budget. Are we underfunded by the British Government? Yes, we are, but Ministers have their own budgets and priorities. In my view, budgets must be targeted towards those who need the most support. That is why my Bill is in front of all of you today. The time for talking about holiday hunger is over. You either stand with me and help to deliver this important piece of legislation, or you do not. Supporting a motion is very easy, but we are elected to make difficult decisions. For my part, this is a very easy decision. I may not convince everyone in the House, but I only need a majority. Your vote matters to all the children in your communities. What is the cost of not supporting it? I look forward to the debate.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call David Brooks. I remind you that I may need to cut you off before 2.00 pm, but hopefully I will not.

Mr Brooks: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I listened to Danny's contribution and I recognise, as we all will, that it is a sensitive issue. Chronic poverty and poverty involving families who find themselves in short-term difficulty due to difficult circumstances arising and the resulting financial struggles are issues that all of us across this Chamber deal with through our offices, particularly, but not exclusively, in winter periods, when costs are higher, fuel is needed and so on.

Members and the general public will probably instinctively think that, on the face of it, the Bill is good and that it is ethical and moral to support those in our society who are struggling and the least well off, particularly children. There is a problem, however. The Assembly is not here to be just a factory for nice ideas and worthy ideals. We are not here to just tell people what they would like to hear, wilfully blinding ourselves at times, as we do, to the financial realities of the Executive. If we want to achieve a good and worthy aim, such as supporting those in poverty, we have a duty to consider how best we can do that. I am not sure whether the Bill does that.

Ending poverty or best supporting those who are struggling in that way is right. It is so blatantly, obviously right to provide such support that we have long had a system for doing so — indeed, the United Kingdom was a forerunner and leader in that respect — called the welfare system. It seems to me that the Bill is a top-up welfare payment for some by another name. To note that is not to oppose the principle of such support, but it is important to the consideration. Children do not fall into poverty by themselves. They do so because their family, their parents, their guardians or their support networks are, for a time, without the resources and means to meet their needs. Usually, when a child faces that kind of poverty, the adults are already going without to provide all that they can. Let us be clear: nobody in our society should be in a position where they cannot afford the basics. There is no more fundamental and basic a need than the need for food, but that is an issue for the welfare system, which falls in part with Westminster and in part with our own Department for Communities. It is absolutely not a responsibility for the Department of Education.

I said recently at the Education Committee, as we discussed the Children’s Services Co-operation Act (Northern Ireland) 2015 with regard to issues relating to the Department of Health, that cooperation is absolutely necessary. However, if it is to be viable, it cannot simply mean the responsibilities of one Department being passed over to another. Helpfully, the Communities Minister is not resisting progress on this issue. He has brought forward a poverty strategy to address these very issues. However, the Executive have not yet allocated a single penny. The same Sinn Féin Finance Minister who is overseeing the chronic underfunding of our education system has also shown no desire to further fund interventions on poverty, yet here we have a Bill that would pull resources from an education system that already has mammoth challenges with its budget.

The Department of Education undertook to roll out a scheme during COVID, and there has been a much-repeated call to roll out something similar to that which was done in unique and emergency circumstances when there were significant additional funds from central government for issues to be resolved.

We had that in the case of mental health interventions, which were good ones. Pat often talks about Healthy Happy Minds, and everyone agrees that those were positive interventions, but some of us also recognise the reality that those took place in exceptional times, when resources and realities were different.

Everybody can see that the education system is struggling to meet financial demands. We can look at our school estate and the pressures on SEN provision. The Minister of Education has made efforts to ramp up childcare with significant investment to support families. The Minister has done exceptionally well with the resources that he has. The reality, however, is that he faces Executive underfunding to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds.

I say all that to make the point that it matters where resources sit. It matters that duties sit with the right Department, and it is essential in proposing new resource-intensive plans that we consider where the money will come from. The Bill will not tackle the underlying structural problems that bring about poverty in the way that Mr Lyons's proposals seek to do. It is not good enough that something is virtuous; it must also be done in the right way and with due consideration for resource. I am interested to hear what conversations Sinn Féin, in bringing the Bill forward, have had with the Finance Minister in order to properly resource the education system before demanding that it takes on the responsibilities of other Departments, particularly when the Department that is responsible for poverty alleviation has itself received no support for work in that area.

I make the point that there is and will be a question of fairness and consistency as well. Many low-income families who may not meet the strict eligibility criteria for free school meals also struggle during holiday periods but receive no additional support, often missing out on repeated supports because those supports often use the same criteria, which exclude them repeatedly. That creates a system where assistance is unevenly distributed, potentially fostering resentment and perceptions of inequality for those whom we often call the "working poor".

There are other issues that I will look at as the Committee for Education considers the Bill. However, let us be clear: nobody in the Chamber is against poverty alleviation. That is as obvious as motherhood and apple pie; I do not think that anyone in the Chamber honestly believes that about others, regardless of our differing views and ideologies. Of course, making sure that every child is fed is a fundamental concern for us all, but the who and how matters. The strategy to ensure that we target and roll back poverty and do not just treat the symptoms also matters. The place for that is welfare support, not with the Department of Education, which, as everyone else can see, is already strapped for resources.

We cannot take money from the legions of challenges that we already face around school buildings, SEN provision, childcare and teachers' and school staff pay, only for demand to be placed in welfare too. Colleagues cannot keep demanding more of those challenges in full knowledge of the financial pressures that we face and knowing that the person who holds the purse strings sits on their Benches, without making significant commitments either to the needs of education or, indeed, to welfare and poverty.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, David.

Question Time begins at 2.00 pm, so I suggest that the Assembly takes its ease until then. This debate will continue after Question Time, when the next Member to speak will be Cara Hunter.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Linda Dillon is not in her place. I will move on to Áine Murphy.

Mrs Little-Pengelly (The deputy First Minister): For over 10 years, the T:BUC strategy has had a significant and positive impact on the lives of so many people here. However, we recognise the need for a modernisation of our T:BUC strategy that builds on programme delivery to date, provides us with the flexibility to address the issues facing our communities today and allows us to quickly react to new issues as they emerge. The T:BUC review has been completed and is informing our thinking as we move forward. We expect significant progress to be made on the development of a refreshed strategic approach by the end of the summer. During that process, the delivery of T:BUC programmes under the current strategy will continue, positively impacting on communities across the country.

Ms Murphy: While the T:BUC programme has supported a large number of programmes in rural areas, there is a concern about how accessible the projects are outside urban centres. What steps will the review take to ensure that the programmes are accessible to all, especially those in rural areas?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: It is incredibly important that the programmes are impactful everywhere. In urban areas, at times, we see a manifestation of some of the challenges more frequently than in rural areas, but good relations are important no matter where people live, including in rural communities.

The implementation of rural needs assessments is important for screening policy. It is critical that the assessments are done in a way that genuinely asks the key questions around issues such as the Member has referenced, including accessibility and how fit for purpose the programmes are for particular communities. We want to see people come together, should that be in urban areas or in rural communities.

Mrs Cameron: From the assessments of T:BUC that have been undertaken to date, will the deputy First Minister confirm that the programme has been a success and that we should now actively drive forward a refreshed programme to support the excellent work of the groups and organisations that have been involved?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: When we publish a strategy, have a delivery plan for it and fund projects either directly through our signature projects or through local councils, where we support a huge amount of that work, it is incredibly important that we ensure that we evaluate that and make sure that the money that we have is being used correctly. Unfortunately, resources across government are finite, so it is critical that we use them in the best way that we can.

I am really pleased about the success of T:BUC. It has had a huge impact. The evaluations have been very positive. By way of example, 8,000 young people participated in the Uniting Communities programme, and 36,000 young people participated in the youth programme against an original target of 10,000. Even on tricky issues such as interfaces, progress has been made, with a third of interfaces having been reduced, a third removed completely and a third being work in progress. The important thing about Together: Building a United Community is that we do not avoid the difficult issues. It may be challenging to make progress, but we must still take on those issues and try to make positive progress against them. That can be done only by working with people in those communities. That is right at the heart of T:BUC, and I have no doubt that that will continue to be the case as we move on to T:BUC 2.

Ms Bradshaw: The Committee for the Executive Office recently heard about an amazing project run by the Open University through youth services across Northern Ireland that deals with young people at interfaces. The people involved told us about the funding crisis that they face. Given the huge outputs and benefits from T:BUC, to what degree are you engaging with the Department of Education to fill the gap created by posts no longer being filled?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: As the Member will be aware, all Departments face significant financial challenges in this financial year. Of course, the ambition of every Minister in the Executive goes well beyond the budget available, but we want to protect the work that really works, such as the projects that have evaluations showing a really positive impact. We recognise that we deliver core public services through, for example, the third sector and other agencies. Trying to ensure that they get the funding that they need in a difficult budget situation is challenging, but it is a challenge that we have to take up and work on.

Of course, all Ministers are acutely aware of the pressures on groups that have been funded through their Departments. Just recently, a number of projects that were funded through the Shared Prosperity Fund came to an end. That will have a huge impact. We try to ensure complementarity of our T:BUC programmes and those of Communities and Education. We fund some of that work, and some of it is funded by those Departments. Peace funding and other external funds are also critical to achieving what we need to do on the ground.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: We are determined to improve the process to ensure that more of our capital projects are delivered on time and on budget. Two work streams currently under way will help to shape decision-making on the best way forward. First, TEO and Strategic Investment Board (SIB) officials are taking forward work to address the recommendations from the recent review of SIB, including the provision of greater strategic support to the Executive. Secondly, the enabling action plan associated with the draft investment strategy will be one of the key elements of tackling the underlying issues that contribute to delays in infrastructure delivery. There are a number of actions, including developing an approach to future infrastructure needs assessment. We will use the findings from those work streams as part of our considerations on the best way forward, including the potential role of an infrastructure commission. Decisions on the way forward will be a matter for the Executive in due course.

Mr Durkan: I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. It is 14 months since I asked her an almost identical question, seeking to improve the North's lamentable record when it comes to the delivery of capital projects. However, what I have heard is that there has been little in the way of progress in those 14 months. Is that accurate, and is it acceptable? Is it typical of the Executive that even an initiative to speed up delivery and make it more efficient has been the victim of delay and more delay?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his supplementary. The reality is that no new body will be the silver bullet for the challenge that we face. We need accountability from Ministers for the capital projects in their portfolio. I see an increasing instinct from parties around the Chamber — they see it as the simple solution — to call for the setting up of yet another body with all of the associated costs, which would devolve accountability once again to somebody else. It is time for Ministers to take accountability, speak to their officials and demand that those projects be brought in on time.

The First Minister and I have been liaising with the head of the Civil Service on this important issue. We need fit-for-purpose officials to drive forward delivery on capital. We need to make sure that we have the right skills in the Civil Service to do that, and we need to make sure that there is adequate monitoring of the capital projects in each Department and then collectively. Those are all things that the Executive are accountable for.

Of course, as I said, we are not ruling out the prospect of the likes of an infrastructure commission — it was one of the proposals put forward in the very useful report — but it is not the silver bullet and will not resolve all of the issues. There is a risk that it could layer on even more bureaucracy. We have to get this right. Of course, there has to be accountability from Ministers. That is absolutely core to the issue.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I question why the SIB is involved in its own review. That is certainly not in keeping with good governance. You said, however, that the SIB, along with TEO officials, is looking at the recommendations from the recent review. Can you provide any detail, even an indicative timeline, on when any new members can be recruited to the Strategic Investment Board?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The Member will be aware that an external review of the SIB was carried out. The report was critical, in that its key reflection was that the SIB had perhaps lost sight of the strategic aspect of what it does. Many people contracted by the SIB are doing really valuable work in Departments. Some of the work identified in the report is "business as usual". That is why we need upskilling in the Civil Service. We need the right skills in the right places. We need to rely less on expensive external consultancy. We need to rely less on SIB consultants being brought in. That would free up the SIB to do what it was designed to do, which is to give strategic advice.

Northern Ireland needs capital projects to be brought in on time and on budget, but that is not happening at the minute. That is not acceptable. Doing that has to be a core efficiency and a core transformation issue that we are driving, because, if a capital project is not brought in on time and on budget, it ends up costing much more in due course. We have seen that with years and years of delay. Members will be aware that a number of other factors are delaying capital projects, not least the climate change legislation that has come into play. That needs to be tackled as well.

Mrs Erskine: The Executive have agreed projects such as the York Street interchange, the A4 Enniskillen southern bypass and the A5. Despite the political agreements on those flagship projects, infrastructure cannot be delivered, owing to constraints that include the climate change legislation. Surely the parties that championed that legislation, such as our oh-so-effective Opposition and those who now hold the portfolio in the likes of the Department for Infrastructure and the Department for the Economy, should see its effects. Does the deputy First Minister agree that we must work to resolve those issues in order to ensure effective delivery of large infrastructure projects and deal with issues at source rather than spend more money on ineffective talking shops?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her important question. We all have responsibilities to our environment. There is no doubt that, across the House, there is a great deal of consensus that we must do what we can to protect our environment. A balance must always be struck with such things, however. As we have seen, the reality is that cutting deeper or faster than any other jurisdiction, to the detriment of the citizens whom we serve, results in delays to critical road projects, in capital infrastructure projects being mired in the courts, in projects not proceeding and in people not getting the services that they want. There are real risks for hospitals, schools and roads. The key thing has to be finding a balance.

We have seen a number of critical road projects, one of which is in the Member's constituency, paused by the Infrastructure Minister for what is coming up to a year. That project is critical for people. It is about safety and saving lives. The House needs to get real, take a look at that project and strike a balance to allow core infrastructure to be built and for the needs of the people whom we serve to be met.

Mr Blair: The deputy First Minister referred to the Strategic Investment Board in her reply to the substantive question, and it came up again in answer to a supplementary question. What functions that the Strategic Investment Board currently holds might be transferred to an infrastructure commission? Has any preparatory work been done in that regard?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The Member is no doubt aware that the functions of the SIB are set out. One of its core functions is to advise the Executive on the investment strategy and to try to tackle some of the barriers to progress. When we look back over the past 10 years, we see that the challenges to infrastructure delivery have not been overcome. We need a real game changer. The public have an expectation that there will be delivery. As one of my colleagues behind me rightly pointed out, the reason that capital projects often do not progress is not that there is no political will. They are agreed by the Executive, and, indeed, many of them got external capital funding secured through political agreements. That funding was hard-won. Although we were able to secure funding, we have not seen delivery of projects through our system for all kinds of reasons.

We have a lot of activism in the courts, a lot of regulation and a lot of other issues that are preventing progress. We have a system that is simply not fit for purpose. Today, we are seeing the resumption of a public inquiry into the Dalradian plan, and, regardless of whether you are for or against that mine, the length of time that that process has taken is, quite frankly, an embarrassment to our system. That cannot continue to be the case. We need to get that tackled. We need to bring those time frames down, and we need to deliver the capital projects that the people whom we serve deserve.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Supporting young people with special educational needs is a priority for the Executive, and we all recognise the importance of clear, well-planned pathways into further training, education or employment and of providing access to appropriate health pathways. The delivery unit is overseeing a portfolio of transformation activity, within which a number of projects are aimed at strengthening pathways and outcomes for young people with special educational needs. Given the size of the unit and its agreed work programme, there is very limited further capacity to undertake an exercise of the scale recently suggested by the Health Minister. However, we have asked our officials to engage in wider discussions to help understand the scope and the trajectory of the work and whether there can be a role for the delivery unit in future phases.

Mrs Guy: I thank the deputy First Minister for the response. Based on what she said, was it appropriate for the Health Minister to refer the issue to the delivery unit, or can that be viewed as an attempt to simply pass the buck on action to deliver post-19 provision to the Executive Office, in effect, delaying action on post-19 provision in this mandate rather than accelerating it?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. Like her, I have no doubt, I have heard very genuine representations about the challenges that many families and, indeed, young people face when they hit 19. I think that there is a shared desire to do more. We need to do more to support those families. I recognise, as I have already referenced, the incredibly constrained financial environment that we are all trying to operate in. However, where I agree with the Member is that getting adequate support for young people post-19 with special educational or other needs should be business as usual in Departments. Yes, it is a cross-cutting issue. Departments need to speak to each other on this important issue, and I believe that they should be able to do that.

If we look back, we see that some of the funding for this very important area came from external funds, and it was never mainstreamed in Departments' budgets to the extent that it needed to be. That needs to change. I have a huge amount of sympathy with the lobby groups on the issue, but, more than that, I am determined that we need to do something meaningful on this, and that requires Departments to get their heads together to try to resolve the issue and take a look at what we can do. That will, of course, require looking at the finances of all of this, but let us start by seeing what the actions are and what they will cost and how we can work together to make something work for those young people and their families.

Ms Forsythe: There seems to be a lack of understanding among some Members about the role of the delivery unit. Will the deputy First Minister provide some clarity and explain how important it is that the unit is small and is able to be agile enough to deliver as intended?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Absolutely. The delivery unit proposal is in the Programme for Government, and it is there because of some of issues that I have already mentioned. There is frustration that the way that we are doing things at the moment is not delivering in the way that we want. We have all heard the old adage that, if we continue to do things in the way that we have always done them, we are always going to get the same result. We have to change the way that we do business. That requires a lot of boring stuff and process stuff, including, as I said, upskilling to get the right people with the right skills in the right places to deliver on political agreements and the will of this place. It also includes looking at our processes to streamline those and get rid of anything that is unnecessary. It is important in all that and in introducing the delivery unit that it is agile and small and is able to add value.

There are lots of lessons to be learnt from the Strategic Investment Board. What once should have been very strategic becomes something that is really about getting to grips in Departments and helping to deliver the nuts and bolts. That is important, but it is not strategic. We need to be careful that the delivery unit does not get pulled in that way and that it remains at the centre and able to come in on a task-and-finish basis and add value to what we need it to do.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The redevelopment of Casement Park remains an Executive flagship capital project. Whilst responsibility for the redevelopment lies with the Minister for Communities, we have reiterated our commitment to making progress on the matter in the Programme for Government.

Mr McNulty: I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. Yesterday, at the BOX-IT Athletic Grounds in Armagh, players, coaches, management teams, stewards, press and 16,000 fans were immersed in the blood and thunder — the cut and thrust — of the Ulster Championship at a brilliant venue. It was an epic encounter, decided only after extra time, with Armagh beating Tyrone by one point. Deputy First Minister, do you and the First Minister have any sense of regret or shame that you are denying a generation of Antrim Gaels a similar experience through your inability to deliver the Executive flagship project that is Casement Park?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: It is important to say clearly that the money allocated to Casement was agreed by the Executive. Casement did not proceed on the timeline of the other sporting groups not because of a lack of political agreement but because of a variety of other issues. The money ring-fenced by the Executive remains, but the costs of Casement have increased significantly. The Member will be aware that the Minister for Communities takes the lead on this issue, but it is incredibly difficult at a time when we are under huge fiscal pressure. However, as I said in my previous answer, we need to get our capital investment right. If we deliver more on time and on budget, we can do more with the capital that we are allocated.

If you speak to anybody on the street in Northern Ireland, they will tell you that they know that our waste water infrastructure is crumbling and that investment is vital. They know that our road infrastructure has potholes and needs investment and that, for safety, new roads are needed. People need new hospitals, new GPs and new schools. There are all kinds of capital issues where there is a lot of pressure on each Department. It is the Executive's responsibility to balance all that. Yes, we need to deliver for people on capital projects, and the more that we deliver on time and on budget, the more that we can do.

Mr Sheehan: I welcome the deputy First Minister's restating that Casement Park remains a flagship Executive project and her commitment to make progress on it in the Programme for Government. Does the deputy First Minister agree that we must continue to maximise Executive funding for all sporting facilities?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. Sport plays such a pivotal role throughout Northern Ireland. It is not just football, rugby and GAA, of course, but hockey, cricket and so many other sports. For young people, it is transformative. It is about health, child development, socialisation and all kinds of positive aspects, which is why my colleague the Minister for Communities is working hard to support sports throughout Northern Ireland in whatever way he can. When I speak to the Communities Minister, he makes it clear that he would like more money to invest in our sporting infrastructure and our sports. That will always be the case, but I can advise the Member that the Minister is fighting hard for sport in Northern Ireland to ensure that there is a fair share for all who enjoy that really important aspect.

Mr Brett: Does the deputy First Minister agree that, if the Member for Newry and Armagh is looking for someone to blame for the hold-up at Casement Park, he would do better to look at his own Benches? First, sitting just two seats from him is the former Minister who unlawfully approved the previous planning application, which is the reason for the delay at Casement. Secondly, he might want to speak to the former MLA for West Belfast Mr Attwood, who protested outside Casement Park, saying that it should not be redeveloped.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. No doubt people can throw around political point-scoring on why delays happen, but, at the heart of all of this, it is about trying to identify how to improve the way in which we do capital investment. As I have said, in reality, the reason that Casement has not progressed is not that there was no political will. The money was distributed in a fair and equitable way at the time. Of course, we have the rugby stadium and the national stadium at Windsor Park, and we do not have Casement. That is not because of a lack of Executive agreement but because of a range of issues that include those people who were opposed to the planning application, the size and scale and the increase in costs.

It all comes back to the fact that some of those who shout the loudest are in an absolutely optimal position to ask those around them about the challenges to making progress on some of the capital projects. For us in the new Executive, the challenge is with making sure that we address all the issues that have caused delay to a range of capital projects in the past and to try to ensure that that does not happen as we move forward.

Mr Honeyford: I welcome a couple of things in the deputy First Minister's answer in relation to the commitment to deliver in the Executive, including the delivery of Casement Park. Deputy First Minister, can you point to one tangible action that you or your colleague in your office have taken that has moved Casement Park closer to being delivered?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: As I said, the Minister for Communities, not the Executive Office, leads on that.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: We strongly condemn all forms of hate and prejudice; they have no place in our society. Through the development of our draft framework for race relations, we continue to work collaboratively with all Departments to support cohesive, thriving communities. While the framework’s focus is on addressing racism and race hate crime, we are also working to bring forward a refreshed approach to the Executive’s Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC) strategy, which will, hopefully, create alignment with the draft framework for race relations and ensure that our efforts to tackle all forms of hate are maximised and encompass the evolving issues across communities. Additionally, our officials engage regularly with their counterparts in the Department of Justice in forums such as the DOJ-led hate crime delivery group to ensure a coherent and coordinated approach, across government, to all forms of hate crime.

Ms Egan: Thank you, deputy First Minister. What you said about collaborating and linking across Departments on the prevention of hate crime is important. When it comes to preventative work on tackling hate crime, are you concerned about the removal of front-line youth work services?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I am not aware of the removal of specific funding. The Member will be aware that, due to the situation with the Budget, each Department is liaising with the organisations that they have funded to try to ensure that there is some certainty, while discussion of the overall issue continues. It is, of course, important that we support our third-sector partners. They are critical to us in trying to tackle such issues.

We work with statutory bodies as well. We work with the PSNI and very closely with the Department of Justice. That is important. At a time of budgetary constraints, however, it is more important than ever to work with existing programmes to mainstream some of their core values, tackling some of the attitudes and issues that give rise to hate and prejudice. That includes those in the Department of Education and the Department for Communities. We support so many projects with funding, including through councils, through which we could mainstream that and use the money that we have in a way that maximises outcomes.

Ms Sheerin: I welcome the strong condemnation of all hate crime and prejudicial language. Does the Minister agree that it is important that all Members across the Chamber strongly condemn hate crime and any sort of sectarian or racist abuse and that we all bear that in mind when talking in the Chamber by using language that reflects respect for all sections of our society?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Yes, of course.

Mr K Buchanan: Deputy First Minister, you talked about T:BUC in response to a previous question and in your answer to this question. Do you agree that bringing forward a revised and refreshed T:BUC strategy as soon as possible is extremely important to crime prevention more broadly?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Absolutely. It is important that we call out that hate, prejudice and criminal behaviour wherever we see it. I was in the Chamber for Members' statements and listened to my colleague Deborah Erskine talk about the attack on a Sunday school hall in her constituency and about the importance of people calling that out. That is hate. Things that may not seem really big to others are incredibly important to those who use the hall. It is incredibly upsetting when people see that type of attack, which has been motivated by hate.

My colleague rightly pointed out that, in those circumstances, we need to hear all MLAs across all parties calling that out very loudly. It is about calling out not just those incidents that grab the headlines but all forms of hate, wherever we see it. We should stand united against them all.

Mr Speaker: Mr O'Toole for a brief supplementary.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Mr Speaker. On that, deputy First Minister, do you agree that many people in the BAME community here feel really let down by the Executive? Hate crime increased by 50% in the final year of the last racial equality strategy. They really want to see more practical action ahead of the summer, in particular, because there is the fear of more violence, given that we have seen that during the last two summers in Northern Ireland.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The Member is likely aware that, after the issues that arose in Ballymena, we have invested over £500,000 through local councils to support resilience work right across Northern Ireland. We have also worked with partners, including the PSNI, the DOJ, local councils and others, to try to ensure that a range of actions come forward. We have the refugee integration strategy. A lot of work has been happening under that, including a number of key actions that are being driven forward in the collaborative groups. Of course this is incredibly important. It is about a combination of showing political leadership and saying very clearly that any aspect of hate, intolerance and prejudice is wrong, and investing in communities to support their resilience in order to resist that.

Mr Speaker: I call Mr O'Toole to ask a topical question.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his important and, indeed, timely question. It is an incredibly important issue for many people. I have already seen across the House some of the pantomime antics of Members who want to point fingers at others. Of course, it is important that we step up and do everything that we can to support people. We recognise that many people face pressure at the moment from the increase in prices. That includes our small to medium-sized businesses, our farmers, our fishermen and our hauliers. It is incredibly important to support them. It also includes the squeezed middle — those families who need to put fuel in their car or another vehicle or put heating oil in their tank. We recognise the huge pressure that people are under. We have been following a significant amount of work right across all the Departments through the Executive Office's civil contingencies group.

I advise the Member that we raised the issues directly with the Prime Minister when he was here. In correspondence, we asked for three specific actions from the UK Government. We did that because the UK Government have the ability to do something about those things. Tax and fuel duty, for example, are matters for the UK Government. That is why we have asked them. I believe that the UK Government will have to act to support people who are genuinely feeling the squeeze.

I attended a high-level ministerial meeting with officials from right across the UK. I was joined by the First Minister of Scotland, people from the Welsh Government and, indeed, the Economy Minister. The Economy Minister has set up a supply chain group to monitor, in particular, the supply of fuel into Northern Ireland. That group is coordinating across the UK. We are getting —.

Mr Speaker: Minister, your two minutes are gone.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: OK.

Mr O'Toole: Deputy First Minister, I did not hear a single specific action that the Executive have led on. I will leave aside for one second the irony of your listing all the people affected when you and your colleagues flew over to Washington to plámás and flatter the man who caused the crisis in the first place with his reckless war.

Deputy First Minister, you said that the primary responsibility lies with the UK Government. You are right about that in relation to fuel duty and things of that nature. The Opposition agree with the Executive on that. However, I refer to actions such as spending the £17 million of support money, engaging with farmers and small businesses, delivering a reduction in transport fares and supporting domiciliary care workers with the pressures that they face in getting around the country. That is just a short list, but all of those are specific, practical actions that you could have taken, but the Executive have done none of them. You, your party and Sinn Féin have sought to theatrically blame —

Mr Speaker: Is there a question, Mr O'Toole?

Mr O'Toole: — one another and then shift responsibility to London.

Mr Speaker: OK. We will move on.

Mr O'Toole: Finally, on behalf of the ordinary people of Northern Ireland, I ask this: will the Executive take some responsibility?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Of course, the Member will clip the footage to show his question: he never shows my answers. His point is a nonsense: there is a big difference between dialogue and endorsement. The SDLP Member sits there, and he knows the difference. I engaged with the president of the United States, a person with huge global influence. I did my job and stepped forward, because I will always stand up for the interests of Northern Ireland and make sure that I seize every opportunity to promote it.

I went through a range of actions in my answer to the previous question. I have heard the Member say repeatedly in this place that there has been no action, but there has been a significant amount of action. There are daily updates and hourly monitoring between our civil contingencies group and the Department for the Economy. We have corresponded with the Prime Minister and spoken directly to him. We have made calls for people to take key actions. We have discussed the issues at a number of Executive meetings. I specifically raised the point about the costs for domiciliary care workers with the Health Minister at the last Executive meeting.

There is a wide range of actions. Unfortunately, having only two minutes to answer does not allow me to go through all of them, but I can assure the public that we are following the process that is set down for our civil contingency mechanisms. We are working across the UK. Our civil contingency team, along with teams in the Department for the Economy, is working with colleagues in Scotland, Wales, and, indeed, Whitehall to make sure that we have hourly monitoring of the situation and that we are pressing the UK Government to take action, because they can take action. Today, the Member has heard that the Communities Minister will bring proposals to the Executive this week for the £17 million. We have urged Ministers to move quickly and to get support to people where and when they need it.

Mr Speaker: Mr McAleer is not in his place. I call Dr Aiken.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. Representation is incredibly important. The reality is that global events such as these have an impact on the people of Northern Ireland, and it is important that we know and are informed about what is happening. From a UK perspective, it is the right of the people of Northern Ireland and the Government in Northern Ireland to be informed about those matters. We are primarily focused on ensuring that the people of Northern Ireland get the support that they need, including in defence. Having a strong defence is critical for the entire UK. The Member and I were at a conference together, and we talked about the importance of, for example, the Royal Navy’s role in protecting undersea cables not just in Northern Ireland and the UK but, indeed, in the Republic of Ireland. All of those issues have an impact on the people of Northern Ireland. I will always turn up, show up, speak up and stand up for Northern Ireland, and I will fight as hard as I can to get the people of Northern Ireland the help and support that they need when they need it.

Dr Aiken: I thank the deputy First Minister for her remarks in answer to my question. Is she aware that the Irish Government, having no comprehension of what is going on, have tried, unofficially, to get similar security briefings from the UK Government? If that is the case, would it not be useful, on an all-island basis, for both the First Minister and the deputy First Minister to attend those briefings?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: It is incredibly important that we get the information, and that is why I attend when I get an invitation to do so. It is incredibly important for us to know what will happen down the line. It is not just a snapshot of what has happened thus far; we can get a sense of what will happen from the people who monitor the situation internationally. Of course, international relations and defence are not devolved issues, and we therefore rely on Whitehall and the UK Government. I have been pushing the UK Government to ensure that we are constantly kept in the loop about those important issues. As we plot the way forward over the next number of months, it is important that we get that information and use it to put in place the policies and the things that we need to do to protect our businesses, farmers, fishing industry and the citizens of Northern Ireland.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: That is an absolute mischaracterisation for the sake of political posturing. The reality is that the Iranian regime is an evil regime. There is no doubt about that. It murdered an estimated 30,000 of its own citizens because they had the audacity to protest. The regime is oppressive to women and all kinds of minorities. As I have said before in this place, I find it baffling that anyone would, in any way, throw up a defence of that regime. I also said clearly on that day, however, that we want there to be peace. Conflict is always tragic, and it always has tragic consequences. It may, at times, be necessary, but we all must work towards trying to bring peace to the Middle East. That is what we all hope for.

We are able to have a very limited impact on some of the global wars and conflicts and on places where there is instability, but what we can do is stand up for the people whom we serve in Northern Ireland by trying to do our best for them and by working to try to bring about interventions to secure the supports that our farmers, our businesses, our fishing industry and our squeezed families really need.

Ms Flynn: With respect, deputy First Minister, what is baffling is the fact that people are struggling and feeling the impact of that war locally. They would have appreciated a direct answer to my question, but that was not one.

Does the deputy First Minister agree that, in the context of the increasing cost of living, including the rising cost of home heating oil and fuel, the response of the British Government has been woefully inadequate?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: As the Member will know, we have asked the UK Government to step up and to do so urgently. There is a significant amount of tax on fuel, for example. That is something about which the UK Government must do something, and urgently. We have also asked them to bring forward a package to support people who are struggling, particularly our small to medium-sized businesses and hauliers, as well as our farmers, who are also feeling the pressure. As I indicated in my previous answer, I disagree with what the Member said. People who are listening to Question Time want their representatives to focus on trying to get support out to them and on making sure that we make the best case for the people of Northern Ireland instead of trying to score political points in the Chamber.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. As I said, all conflicts should be avoided if possible, but, unfortunately, there will always be global conflicts that are completely outside of our control or influence. In such situations, the United Kingdom, as a sovereign state, has responsibilities under the various international treaties covering refugees and support for them. The UK has always stepped up to provide support where it can. It is not a devolved matter, but that is something that has happened in the past.

The Member will also be aware that the way in which international treaties apply in the case of refugees from any place means that the countries in the surrounding area are often required to step up initially. The situation is then monitored for potential wider impacts. Nobody wants any conflict to roll on for a sustained period. I hope that the current conflict will come to an end swiftly and that the refugee situation does not subsequently become a significant international issue.

Mr Blair: I thank the deputy First Minister for her reply. What conversations, if any, has she or the Executive Office had with the Home Office concerning the likelihood of further refugees coming to the UK from war zones?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: As the Member will be aware, we have a number of specific schemes to support refugees. Those are done at a UK-wide level, but, of course, Northern Ireland plays its part. We currently have the Syrian, Afghan and Ukrainian schemes. At this stage, we do not anticipate any particular refugee scheme related to the current conflict, but that is because the focus at the moment is very much on hoping that it will be a short-lived conflict and that there will be no need for the significant travel of refugees from the region. Of course, we will continue to monitor that. I advise the Member that Executive Office officials liaise with the Home Office on a regular basis, and we would expect to get very early notice of such a proposal, if there were to be one.

Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): As previously outlined in a recent Adjournment debate, the A1 junctions phase 2 scheme is a mature and well-developed project. The statutory processes have been completed, including the public local inquiry, and an approved outline business case is in place.

In July 2024, the scheme was confirmed as proceeding as a single, coherent package of works, reflecting its strategic and safety importance, and it moved into the procurement phase, completing the preparatory procurement activity with a restricted list of tenderers being established. In February 2025, a restricted list of tenderers was put in place, positioning the scheme to progress efficiently when appropriate. Following the A5 judgement, the restricted list was extended for one year as a deliberate step to protect the viability of the scheme during a period of legal uncertainty.

The issues being examined in the A5 case are relevant to the approval of all major infrastructure projects, including the A1, and it is therefore considered appropriate not to take key decisions on those projects until there is clarity from the final determination of those proceedings. To protect the delivery prospects of the A1, I must ensure that any next steps align with the final legal position and avoid exposing the scheme to avoidable litigation risk. Extending the restricted list preserves the work already completed, avoids unnecessary delay or cost and maintains flexibility to move to the invitation-to-tender stage, when it is appropriate to do so.

Officials continue to monitor safety on the A1, including reviewing collision data and emerging patterns, while the long-term solution remains delivery of the full phase 2 scheme.

Mr Buckley: Thank you, Minister. Major life-saving infrastructure projects, from the A1 in her constituency to the A5 and the A4 Enniskillen bypass, are being blocked from progressing because of flawed, unattainable climate change targets. Those targets were exclusively backed by your party, the SDLP and Alliance. Minister, you will agree that not only is the delay costing millions of pounds but it is costing lives. Therefore, Minister, will you commit to bringing forward amending legislation to remove the climate change targets that have become an anchor around the neck of Northern Ireland infrastructure projects right across the Province?

Ms Kimmins: Given that we have had this discussion previously, the Member will know that my focus at this time is on the appeal and on delivering the strongest, most robust argument in relation to the appeal. That is my priority. I have also said that, in the meantime, we will continue to look at what other options are available to us so that, in the event of an unsuccessful outcome to the appeal, we can move at pace to ensure that the delivery of the A5 proceeds. That is my focus at this time.

This is not just a result of the current judicial review; there has been a long-running crusade of objections to the A5 that got us to this point. At this time, my officials and I, along with the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and officials in his Department, are focused on winning the appeal, and we will continue to focus on that so that we can move forward positively.

Mr Boylan: Can the Minister give assurances that she remains committed to the A1 scheme?

Ms Kimmins: Yes, absolutely. As I said very clearly during the recent Adjournment debate, I do not want any delay to the A1 scheme. I am absolutely committed to the A1 scheme. Whilst I had to take an extremely difficult decision, I have to be rational and responsible in my role, and that is what I am doing, in the same way as I have applied this to all the other major infrastructure projects that would potentially be at risk of litigation should I proceed while the current appeal is ongoing.

Ms Kimmins: The consultation on my Department's draft road maintenance strategy ran from 2 December 2025 to 30 January 2026. Feedback has been very positive. I thank all those who provided feedback to the consultation for the positive comments that were made. I am working closely with officials to finalise the draft consultation report, which will be shared with the Infrastructure Committee shortly for any further comments as the final stage of the process. Following any comments from the Committee, I will consider whether any amendments are needed before publishing a final road maintenance strategy, along with the consultation report itself. Once it is published, my Department will be in a strong position to progress a modern, data-driven approach to road maintenance across the North.

Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for her answer. The Public Accounts Committee, of which I am a member, recently completed work on the role of utility companies on road openings, which was missing from the draft strategy. Will the Minister confirm whether the updated strategy will, in fact, include action to address the role of utility companies in the poor condition of our roads, particularly through poor reinstatement and the frequent and repeated road openings that weaken the road structure and contribute to its deterioration? When will you take action and fix the crisis on our roads?

Ms Kimmins: As I said in my previous answer, we will consider the response to the consultation and any further comments from the Committee, which we will factor into the final strategy. I welcome the NIAO report and the opportunity to consider its findings through the Public Accounts Committee. My Department has already acted on several of those recommendations, including strengthening article 18 notifications to improve coordination with utilities and better protect resurfaced roads. As the Member will know, to improve transparency and understanding of road deterioration, I have commissioned a full digital survey of the network, which will help to inform analysis of the impact of utility openings and support our review of warranty periods based on robust evidence. I am aware that this issue has been coming up for many years. I am committed to taking that on board and seeing how we can continually improve, based on those recommendations. We are also enhancing our assurance arrangements, maintaining annual reporting of utility performance and contributing to benchmarking across these islands. Whilst progress has been made, I recognise that there is more to do. My Department remains committed to developing and delivering further improvements and addressing the issues raised by the PAC.

Mr McHugh: What is the Department's response to the Public Accounts Committee's 'Report on Road Openings by Utilities'?

Ms Kimmins: As I have said, I welcome the recommendations that have come out of that report. The quality of some reinstatements is an issue — I think that it is fair to say that it is a real bugbear — not just for Members across the House but for the wider public. As I have said, we have already acted on some of the recommendations and will continue to work to see how we can further implement and deliver better-quality outcomes for everybody. I have reinforced my commitment to ensuring that our road network is maintained to the standard that we all expect, and which the public rightly deserves, within a very financially constrained environment. I am confident that the new strategy can help to achieve that and that we will see real, positive benefits in the future.

Ms Bradshaw: The DFI staff whom I contact through my constituency office are wonderful and very responsive. However, a lot of the time they have to come back and say that they do not have the budget for the works that we have requested. What will you do to ensure that there is adequate staff to ensure that the new strategy is actually deliverable?

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for her lovely comments. It is very important that we reflect the huge amount of work that staff do in a very difficult situation. I am also cognisant of the fact that we have a large number of vacancies right across our teams, which also adds to the difficulty in responding to issues as they arise. I have been very focused on that. The Member may be aware that we recently launched recruitment competitions for industrial workers across the Department. We have had huge interest, which I am really pleased about. That will help us to see better staffing and, I hope, better results for people on the ground. Since I have been able to secure additional funding, I have certainly seen a huge amount of activity happening out there when it comes to road repairs. I know that it falls well short of what is needed because of the impact of the weather. We continually see that. The rain has not stopped yet, as anyone who was out and about over Easter knows. However, it sends a clear message that we are serious about it, and we will use all resources that are available to us to ensure that we maximise what we can do. Staffing is a huge part of that, and that is why I am very focused on recruitment. I hope to see really good results coming out of the recent recruitment campaigns.

Mr Durkan: Has the Minister spoken to her colleague the Finance Minister to ensure that any new road maintenance strategy is fully funded, and when can people expect to see and feel the benefits of it? Despite the Minister's efforts and the fact that there has been plenty of positive press about them, our roads are worse than ever.

Ms Kimmins: It is your opinion that they are worse than ever. I think that we have been in this position for many years, and we have not seen a real impact —.

Mr Buckley: It is everyone's opinion.

Ms Kimmins: No, but the point that I am making is this: name me an Infrastructure Minister in the past 25 years who was able to get ahead of it.

Mr Buckley: That is true. They are in the worst state ever.

Ms Kimmins: We have been operating a limited service policy, which was introduced by the DUP over 15 years ago —.

Mr Buckley: They are in the worst state ever, Minister.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Ms Kimmins: We know why that is.

We can pass the buck all that we want, but the reality is that the Executive are facing the situation of our being consistently underfunded. Nobody in the House disagrees with that. I will continue to make the case to ensure that we are properly financed. That does not rest just with the Finance Minister. As much as Members in the House wish to give the British Government cover, they have underfunded us way below what is needed not only to deliver what is needed now but to catch up on what we should have been able to deliver 10, 15 or 20 years ago. The impacts of that underfunding are probably most widely seen in our roads network. I continually make that case, but other Members in the House need to join me so that that voice is heard as strongly as possible, because delivering on that is in all our interests.

The strategy will go some way towards delivering within our very constrained budget and improving our roads. However, the more money that I can get, the more that we can deliver and the greater the impact that we will see right across the North.

Ms Kimmins: With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle,

I will answer questions 3 and 7 together.

I recognise the very real difficulties that are faced by homeowners who live in unadopted developments, particularly in cases where the developer is no longer trading and the bond held by the Department is insufficient to complete the works that are required to bring the streets up to an adoptable standard. Responsibility for constructing roads and associated infrastructure to an adoptable standard rests with the developer. Where a developer fails to do that, my Department has discretionary enforcement powers under the private streets legislation, including the option to draw down on any bond of surety that is in place. However, in a number of older developments, the value of the bond does not fully reflect the cost of the outstanding works. In such circumstances, there is no legal obligation on my Department to fund the shortfall between the bond value and the cost of completion, and there is currently no dedicated budget to do so.

That said, my Department continues to take a case-by-case approach. Officials will pursue developers where they remain in existence, seek to maximise the use of any available bond and engage with residents to explain the options available. Where enforcement action is considered appropriate and proportionate, it may be taken, subject to available resources and legal considerations.

More importantly, I am determined to prevent those situations from arising in the future. Following the Assembly's consideration of the issue, my Department introduced strengthened private streets enforcement guidance in 2025. That has improved how and when enforcement action is initiated, tightened bond release arrangements and significantly reduced the risk of new developments entering long-term unadopted status. While those measures cannot retrospectively resolve all legacy cases, they represent an important step in better protecting homeowners. I will continue to keep the position under review and engage with Executive colleagues and the Assembly on that complex and longstanding issue.

Mr McMurray: Thank you, Minister. You acknowledged that the developers are ultimately responsible, but there have been policy failures that led to the current situation. You referenced the future, but will you develop more robust responses in order to help those who are already stuck in unadopted developments?

Ms Kimmins: As I said, I appreciate the strength of feeling around legacy issues where people have been caught in such situations, particularly where the developer is no longer trading. I regularly receive correspondence from the many people who are in such situations across the North where that issue has had an impact.

At present, there are no plans to review or amend the private streets legislation. It is important to recognise that any legislative change would need careful consideration, particularly in relation to cost, fairness and legal liability.

We had a discussion following the previous question on the ability to maintain our roads to a standard. We struggle to maintain the adopted roads that are already within our responsibility, so we have to be cautious about adding further costs to the mix. I am not shirking my responsibility. The Department has not caused the situation, but we are trying to tighten measures to protect people.

As I said in response to the previous question, I will continue to keep that position under review and to engage with the Executive and the Assembly on the issue, because I recognise that it is stressful for anybody who is impacted on. It is important to take all that into consideration in moving forward.

Ms Sugden: Minister, unadopted developments and roads are a long-standing issue. It is long past time that we just review it: we need to take action on it. Do you agree that we need more government intervention and possibly new legislation? People are unable to sell their homes, and damage is being caused to cars. It is not enough to keep it under review any more. We need to take firm action, and you are the Minister who can do that.

Ms Kimmins: As I said, I am not in any way underestimating its impact, but I have to ensure that I have the ability to deliver on it. That is why I have said that I will keep it under review. There are a number of factors that we have to carefully consider as part of that. As the Member said, it is a long-standing issue. It is impacting on many sites across the North. I can only imagine that the scale of that and the cost of rectifying it would be significant. We have to be careful about what we promise people because it is another thing to be able to deliver on it.

That said, we have to continually look at that to see what else we can do. I have tried to ensure that we put in place policy that protects people going forward. That is a recognition of the significant impact. I am happy to continue to work on it. I take the Member's point that it is not good enough to keep it under review, but we have to remember where the issue arose from. There were measures in place to try to ensure that it did not happen. We will continue to engage on it and will see what else is available to us, but, at this point in time, I have brought forward policy changes to try to protect people as best I can within the remit that I have.

Mrs Dillon: I apologise for not being in my place for question 1 during Question Time to the Executive Office. I welcome the new MLA to the Chamber and offer our well wishes to Gary. We are thinking of him.

Minister, with regard to actions to strengthen enforcement and reduce the risk of new housing developments becoming long-term unadopted sites, can you outline exactly what you are doing in working with planners? It is not all about money; some of it is about the inability to adopt sites because they do not have sight lines. Irresponsible actions are being carried out by developers, and those who end up picking up the costs are unknowing, unwitting people who buy homes in those developments and are left in a position where they cannot sell, cannot get mortgages, cannot develop their homes and cannot move house.

Ms Kimmins: In September 2025, I announced the introduction of new private streets enforcement guidance that strengthens how and when enforcement action is taken. The guidance establishes a clear threshold for initiating enforcement action two years after a development reaches 80% occupancy. Alongside that, my Department has amended bond release thresholds, which enables a larger proportion of the bond to be retained. That provides greater assurance that sufficient funds are available to bring new developments up to an adoptable standard where enforcement becomes necessary.

Taken together, those measures significantly reduce the risk of new developments remaining unadopted and provide stronger protection for homeowners while maintaining the principle that responsibility for private streets rests with the developer until adoption. I think that there are a number of factors. The Member is right in saying that there are other things that do not involve cost, but everybody needs to take responsibility to find a solution. It is totally unfair that those homeowners are left in that position, but the reality is that the cost to rectify that will be huge. We have to think about how we got to this position. As I said, I will continue to look at things on a case-by-case basis, because not all cases are the same. Whilst there are probably common themes, there are some cases that we can continue to work on. That is why I have said that we will keep things under review, and, where possible, I am willing to provide support through the Department.

Mrs Erskine: I am working on the issue through my private Member's Bill. Recently, the Minister announced developer-led contributions, but surely that already happens by way of the article 161 mechanism whereby developers can construct their own waste water treatment in developments. I have seen countless situations where NI Water and her Department failed to adopt developments after construction. Therefore, will the developer-led contributions not lead to more unadopted developments and add to the crisis that is affecting homeowners across Northern Ireland?

Ms Kimmins: First, I am delighted to see the Member back, and I hope that Olivia is doing well. It is great to have you back, but I know that you have had a busy time over the past number of months.

Developer-led contributions are slightly different, and it is important to provide that clarity. At present, NI Water cannot accept funding to deliver waste water connections for a developer. The contributions that I am bringing forward will allow developers to fund connection so that they can make a contribution to allow that to go ahead. That will help to unlock capacity in areas where NI Water cannot, at present, deliver the connections. It is slightly different in the sense that it will allow developers, through a contribution-based approach, to carry out works to the standard that NI Water would deliver.

In some of the conversations that we have had, developers have been quite frustrated. There may be areas of constraint where, with the current price control, NI Water has not been able to get that work done. There may be potential for some developers to come together to unlock capacity in certain areas, and that would enable them to do so where they are willing to make that voluntary contribution. The existing legislation does not allow for that, and that is why I have chosen to bring that forward on a voluntary basis at the beginning. We will review that to see whether we can look at a compulsory contribution scheme going forward.

Ms D Armstrong: I am dealing with four cases of unadopted developments in Fermanagh. In one of those cases, the residents, at great personal cost, have put forward money to ensure that the bond is expanded and that more money is available there. That process is ongoing, and the lack of further movement is causing considerable anguish. Is it fair that residents who are contributing financially to a solution are having to wait an extremely long time for a resolution?

Ms Kimmins: I encourage the Member, if she so wishes, to write to the Department about that specific case to give me a wee bit more detail. I am not familiar with that case off the top of my head. I will be happy to look at that and see whether there is any way of expediting that. I am not sure about the reason for the delay, but I am happy to look at it. If that is a potential way of finding a solution to allow those homeowners to move forward with their lives, we will, absolutely, be happy to do anything that we can to facilitate it.

Mr Carroll: Road maintenance is welcome when it happens. You will probably be aware of the situation in the Lagmore area of west Belfast, where it has taken a lifetime to get roadworks completed. A lot of disruption and frustration has been caused, and people do not know why it is taking so long. Have you or your Department engaged in any discussions with the developer about making some form of financial payment to assist with maintenance?

Ms Kimmins: I am not familiar with whether there have been discussions about that. I am not even sure whether that would be appropriate. I encourage the Member to write to the Department so that I can provide a more detailed response. I am aware of recent schemes that have been delivered in Lagmore. Whilst I appreciate that delays and disruptions to people's daily lives can be very frustrating, I hope that the outcome has been widely welcomed, because I know that those works were badly needed. My colleague Danny Baker is not here, but I know that he has been lobbying for some time to ensure delivery in that area. I appreciate that frustration has been caused, but I hope that people will benefit from that work now.

Ms Kimmins: As the Member will know, the three-pronged approach, which I have well articulated to the Department — securing more funding from the Executive and introducing the Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill and now, as I mentioned, launching developer contributions — underlines my commitment to delivering innovative solutions in partnership with NI Water, Executive colleagues and developers to improve the waste water network, including how the system disposes of waste water.

As I announced in my written ministerial statement on 19 March, developer contributions will be implemented by way of a phased approach. The initial focus will be on designing and legislating for a scheme to enable voluntary contributions. I have also asked my officials to continue working on the potential introduction of a compulsory levy in the future.

The purpose of the initial voluntary scheme is to help unlock critical capacity in NI Water's waste water infrastructure so that, as I said to the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, more residential and commercial development can proceed in areas that are currently constrained. It will deliver improvements by enabling developers to advance essential projects, especially new homes, and give would-be homeowners and tenants access to more housing in areas currently restricted by waste water capacity.

Dr Aiken: I thank the Minister for her answer. She will be aware that organisations such as the Construction Employers Federation (CEF) say that there is a clear limit to how far such voluntary upgrades are likely to go. They cannot see how a single upgrade might be commercially viable were it to be wholly funded by developers. The implication therefore is that there will have to be a co-equal partnership or some kind of funding mechanism to do that. Where will Northern Ireland Water get the money to do that?

Ms Kimmins: As I have said repeatedly, I am clear that developer contributions are not the solution to all our problems. Will they go some way to making an impact? I think that they will. The CEF welcomed the announcement. I spoke at its event the day after, and it alluded to that.

The challenges facing our waste water network are still huge, but I am committed to finding solutions and working our way through them. Progress can be slow, but that is a direct result of the underfunding of the Executive. The Member's colleague who sits on the Executive will be all too familiar with that. This year alone, we have a potential £400 million overspend. That does not happen by accident; it happens as a result of decisions taken in London. Members on the Benches to my right can snigger and laugh at my approach, but my focus is on making sure that we continue to move forward, that we make progress and that we find solutions within the restricted and constrained environment in which we are all operating. I continue to work with all organisations, all bodies and all Members who are willing to work with me and are realistic about what we can achieve and about how we can make this place better for everybody.

Mr Gildernew: Minister, people are struggling with an ongoing cost-of-living crisis, and they now face rising fuel and food prices. Will you once again confirm that you will not introduce water charges for hard-pressed families?

Ms Kimmins: Absolutely. I cannot reiterate that strongly enough, particularly given what people face now. We have seen what has happened in recent weeks on the global stage and the impact that that is having on ordinary people. Such decisions are taken when Governments in Britain and America choose war over people. That is the reality of the situation. They are not the people who feel the pain; it is the people whom we represent, the ordinary people who are struggling to keep their head above water, to put food on the table, to put oil in their tank and to get fuel to take them to and from their job. Many of those people are domiciliary carers. Am I prepared to add to that strain and burden? Absolutely not, and I will not give cover to a British Government who shirk their responsibility and send billions to fund such wars whilst wringing their hands and saying that they cannot do anything else. We continue to bang on the British Government's door to make sure that the people whom we represent get what they are entitled to.

Mr Martin: Does the Minister accept that an increasing number of business organisations have lost faith in her three-pronged approach? Paul McErlean, the director of Build Homes NI, said recently that it is "wholly inadequate" and went on to say:

Does she have another prong, or are the three prongs it?

Ms Kimmins: You have given only one example of a person who has allegedly lost faith. I have been taking action, and we have made progress: over 5,500 new homes have been connected and capacity has been unlocked through dedicated ring-fenced money for NI Water. That is OK as a sound bite in the Chamber, but I continue to get on with the work to ensure that we keep moving forward, rather than standing still or going backwards. I continue to work with everyone to ensure that I listen to whatever solutions others can provide. The only suggestion that I hear right now is domestic water charging, which would put more pressure on people and households that are already struggling. I am providing solutions that, I know, will help us to keep moving forward.

Mr Speaker: We now move to topical questions.

Ms Kimmins: As the Member knows, he listed people who do not all come under the responsibility of my Department. My private office is engaging with hauliers to hear about their issues, but I do not think that they are under any illusion about who is responsible for the challenges that they and many others face. That is why they are taking their fight to Westminster, where the impact is being created. We will continue to support them and everyone who is feeling the impact in the time ahead.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister for her answer. We are now more than three weeks in, and you have not yet met the hauliers. In the South, your party is calling for a motion of no confidence in the Government for not doing enough to address the fuel crisis, despite the Irish Government's announcing a further package of support worth over £500 million — that is half a billion, Minister. Will you table a motion of no confidence in your Executive here, who have not put forward any plan at all to tackle the spiralling energy and fuel cost crisis?

Ms Kimmins: The SDLP loves gaslighting people. It knows full well where the responsibility lies. Maybe its MPs in Westminster will table a no confidence motion.

Mr McGrath: Where is the £17 million?

Ms Kimmins: Ask the Communities Minister [Interruption.]

The SDLP should allow me to answer the question, instead of jeering. The reality is that the SDLP will point blame elsewhere. I have not heard it condemning the Government in the South. I have not heard it condemning the British Government, who are choosing war over the people for whom the SDLP claims to stand up. Shame on you. Be real. The Executive will continue to do everything that we can collectively to ensure that we deliver for people here, but the reality is that your MPs are cosying up to the Government who are delivering this reality for people here.

Mr Speaker: Emma Sheerin.

A Member: Absolute nonsense.

Mr Speaker: Emma Sheerin.

Ms Sheerin: Go raibh maith agat. Tá brón orm.

Some people have no manners.

Ms Kimmins: As the Member will be aware, I have been clear about my commitment to take forward actions that enhance pupil safety, ensuring that any measures that are introduced deliver the safest possible outcomes whilst remaining proportionate and workable in practice. That is important to remember. Trying to put measures in place to protect children as they go to and from school is complex.

As I have said, legislating to ban overtaking stationary buses on our road network is a complex undertaking, given the diverse mix of rural and urban environments. We also have varied road layouts, and there are practical challenges with enforcement. The introduction of new traffic law requires detailed assessment, public consultation and coordination across several agencies, including the PSNI, education bodies, bus operators and road safety specialists. That approach ensures that any changes that are brought forward are practical and enforceable and that they deliver the greatest possible benefit when it comes to the safety of children and young people going to and from school. The next steps will be determined by the ongoing safer journeys to school consultation on overtaking and passing buses.

I cannot over-emphasise the importance of the support from the Infrastructure Committee and of all of the House in making the necessary statutory changes at the earliest opportunity. I intend to introduce legislation this autumn, subject to Executive and Assembly processes. It is anticipated that the first pillar to prohibit overtaking of a stationary bus in clearly defined dangerous circumstances focused on situations where passengers may be exposed to harm will be taken forward through secondary legislation within this mandate. The second pillar, which includes several options for further development designed to mitigate the risks associated with vehicles passing buses during boarding and alighting, including from the opposite direction, will require primary legislation.

Ms Sheerin: Minister, I thank you for that answer and commend you for the work that you have done on this. It is another tangible example of your delivery since you have come into office. I welcome your update that the legislation will hopefully be in place before the end of the mandate. Do you have more detail on the educational aspect of safer journeys to school?

Ms Kimmins: It is important to re-emphasise that legislation alone will not eliminate danger for children on journeys to and from school. I have been clear on that, from taking up post and from my first engagement with Stella and others. The safer journeys to school programme adopts a whole-system approach that will combine education, behaviour-change activity, evidence gathering and enforcement readiness with legislation. My Department is progressing a broad educational package. I have met the Education Minister in relation to this, and officials are working across Departments to ensure that the package is informed by extensive research, through engagement with key partners and concerns expressed by parents and guardians, schools and communities, to ensure that it is evidence-led and therefore effective.

An observational study on buses and school journeys across the North is under way. Officials have been travelling on school buses across the North in rural constituencies and our rural areas particularly. Schools have been surveyed, and focus groups are being established to inform the development of the educational programme.

Ms Kimmins: As the Member is aware, planning policy is a responsibility of local government, as is enforcement, so there is no role for my Department on that.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for her answer, but, given the fact that her party has a large number of councillors in Belfast, what signal does that send to the law-abiding people of this country? Is there one rule for Sinn Féin and another rule for the rest of us?

Ms Kimmins: As I said, this matter is for council planning departments and enforcement teams to take action on in relation to any issue that may arise around enforcement or planning permission. The Member is fully aware of that. The decision would not be taken by the councillors either. It is important to clarify that.

Ms Kimmins: I am glad that the Member has raised that question. She has written to me on the issue as well. I was pleased to note the advertisement of the recruitment competition for industrial road workers that closed at the end of March. The Department received hundreds of applications, which is promising. Our industrial road workers undertake vital operational services. The recruitment campaign demonstrates my commitment to improving our network for the benefit of all road users. As the Member knows, interview open days are planned in Ballymena on 27 and 28 April, with appointments likely to be in June 2026. It is a fast-tracked way of ensuring that we can recruit and recruit quickly, following successful completion of the pre-employment process.

There is only the one open day because the new approach to the recruitment campaign is being piloted in the Ballymena area and aims to increase the number of candidates and shorten the recruitment process. If that approach is successful, we will consider using similar recruitment campaigns in the future, as we use other methods of recruitment currently across the Civil Service. That is the rationale behind there being only one location, but we are mindful that, particularly given the interest in the campaign, there will be others who do not have the means to get there on those days, and we will consider that going forward.

Ms D Armstrong: I thank the Minister for her response. Given the growing numbers of vacancies across the western division, can you agree that work is needed urgently to fill those roles to improve service provision and have a full workforce in place?

Ms Kimmins: As I said in response to a previous question, the Department continues to face significant resource challenges, particularly with the recruitment and retention of staff. We face particular challenges with specialist roles such as industrial road workers and civil engineers, and, undoubtedly, that has impacted on our ability to deliver essential services and infrastructure projects. Road maintenance is probably one of the most glaringly obvious areas of work in which we have challenges.

The Member referenced the western division, and it is experiencing similar vacancy levels to those across all divisions in my Department's transport and road asset management group. To strengthen our workforce planning arrangements internally, we have established a people subcommittee, ensuring that workforce capacity risks are identified and managed as best we can. To build long-term resilience, we are investing in innovative recruitment approaches, particularly the example that I gave around the pilot in Ballymena. That campaign was launched using the TalentDog model, and I think that that will go some way to enhance our resource capability to repair road defects such as potholes and to increase maintenance.

Competitions are also under way using the already successfully established academy and apprentice approach to recruit new civil engineering staff. I have been engaging closely with officials, particularly as we are in the new financial year, to see how we can further maximise our staffing levels because the more internal staff we have, the better the position that we are in to respond to the emerging issues, particularly in relation to our roads network, where we see the challenges increase.

I am acutely aware of the challenges that are being faced across all the divisions, but I hope that the Member is reassured that we are taking decisive action to get to grips with that. The most recent example is one way in which we are doing that.

Ms Kimmins: In that current context, we cannot justify an increase in fares that will hit workers and families, many of whom will now need public transport more than ever as they struggle to put fuel in their cars. I am pleased to announce that, in addition to freezing public transport fares for last year, I intend to freeze them for this financial year. It is important to note that Translink has had a record year of passenger growth in the past year, so it is important that we keep fares affordable. However, as the situation continues to evolve, I will keep it under review to see what else we can do and engage closely with Translink and others to see how we can further support people to use more public transport where they need to and ensure that we continue that trajectory of passenger growth.

Mr Gildernew: I thank the Minister for that positive and practical announcement. Minister, can you commit to working with your Executive colleagues to push the British Government to provide more support to hard-pressed workers and families?

Ms Kimmins: As I have said in response to a number of today's questions, I will absolutely keep working to do my best to protect people here from the policy decisions that are taken in London and to have people's backs. That is what we are elected to do. We will do that as far as we can, but the reality is that the fiscal levers predominantly lie with the British Government in London. As I said, that is why, within my remit, I have chosen that, for the second year running, we will not see a fares increase. On the other hand, I can be criticised for the fact that that reduces the income to Translink at a time when it is already struggling. However, we have to be cognisant of the challenges facing people and households. The reality of where that hits is that many people will struggle to put fuel in their cars. That is why I stand over my decision not to impose water charges on already hard-pressed workers and families.

We will not stand idly by. We will continue to ensure that we stand up for people, and we will stand up to the British Government because it is their responsibility. We pay our taxes. We talk about fuel costs when over 50% of the cost of fuel is tax that goes directly to Westminster. People are angry because they see that the British Government are choosing war over people. We have to get our fair share, and we will continue to work together to ensure that we stand up for people here and get what they are entitled to.

Mr Speaker: Briefly, Minister.

Ms Kimmins: Translink manages 1,460 bus shelters on behalf of my Department. A business case submitted to the Department proposes the replacement and upgrade of 221 bus shelters across the network. If approved, and subject to available funding, the installation of new shelters would begin within 12 months, with the programme to be delivered over five years. That would include ongoing work in West Belfast, and some of the 221 bus shelters that I referenced are in West Belfast.

Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would be grateful for your advice. First, I welcome what the Minister said about freezing public transport fares. She said that when Mr Gildernew asked about it, but, before that, when my colleague Justin McNulty asked her about engagement with Translink, she did not mention the engagement that she had had and the decision to freeze public transport fares. Is it in order for Ministers to choose not to give an answer in response to a question from a Member of the Opposition but to wait to answer the same question from a Member from their party, because it is more politically useful to do so?

Mr Speaker: Frankly, I cannot police how Ministers answer questions. The Minister answered two separate questions on an issue — there is similarity — and it is for Members to decide what to do with the answers.

Dr Aiken: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister made several statements about the United Kingdom funding the war against Iran. To my knowledge — perhaps the Minister would like to correct it — one of the issues is that the United Kingdom Government are not getting involved in the war against Iran. That is a point for clarification.

Mr McAleer: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for not being in my place during TEO Question Time.

Mr Speaker: Thank you.

Members should take their ease before we move to the holiday hunger Bill.

Ms Hunter: I thank the Member to my left for sponsoring the Bill and giving us the opportunity to speak further to this important issue today.

The Education Minister has made clear his intention to raise educational achievement and reduce educational disadvantage. His goal is shared across the House; every one of us is united on it. If we want that to become a reality rather than just rhetoric, we must take action on the child poverty that exists right now in classrooms across Northern Ireland. Last September, a Trussell Trust report revealed that over half a million people across the North, including over 130,000 children, are experiencing food insecurity. The figure is stark and shocking. Those children are part of the cohort of nearly one in three across the UK who live in poverty.

If we are serious about tackling educational underachievement, we must recognise the importance of tackling poverty among our young people. As highlighted by Save the Children, poverty is a major driver of educational underachievement, leading to higher rates of absenteeism and lower grades as well as higher rates of poor mental health and, sadly, lower levels of extracurricular participation.

Research shows that, in attending school, some of the most impoverished children benefit from having at least one hot school meal. That might be the only hot square meal that they receive in a day. It is a true lifeline for so many parents already struggling with the rising costs of rent and, now, fuel and, of course, food. We remain concerned, however, that, as the summer holidays approach, those children will be at increased risk of going to bed on an empty stomach. That is linked not with parental failure at budgeting but with the reality that money just does not go as far as it used to.

By once again extending a direct payment to the parent of a child on free school meals, we will extend the hope that children will not be sent to bed on an empty stomach. Given what we know about the link between poverty and educational outcomes and between hunger and health, the arguments for returning to that payment are self-evident. Indeed, looking back, we see that families across the North received the school holiday food grant between 2020 and 2023, which supported nearly 100,000 children. We know that that support was withdrawn not because the scheme had failed but simply due to budgetary decisions, but the need did not disappear along with it. Evaluations of that scheme and other schemes internationally have demonstrated that such payments are used, as intended, to purchase food, ease financial pressures and provide a degree of stability during periods that are otherwise particularly challenging for low-income households. We know that the long-term costs of inaction are far greater than the short-term costs of intervention. Children who experience persistent poverty are more likely to face poorer educational outcomes, reduced employment opportunities and, later in life, poorer health outcomes. Addressing food insecurity is not, therefore, just a moral imperative but an economic one.

The Bill will not solve child poverty, but it represents a practical step forward, dovetails with the Minister's priorities and could be a positive example of cross-party collaboration. It will ensure that support does not simply stop at the school gate, and it recognises the importance of a child's having the ability to learn and the fact that that does not pause during the school holidays. I firmly believe that, if we are serious about breaking the link between disadvantage and attainment, we must act consistently, not selectively. We cannot champion educational equality during term time and blatantly ignore inequalities and challenges during the school holidays. I strongly believe that Ministers from across the DUP, Sinn Féin, Alliance and the UUP must work more closely together on delivery and particularly on delivery in relation to child poverty, given its prevalence in Northern Ireland.

I anticipate that the fundamental issue — the core issue — with the Bill will be the fact that money is a real problem. We have heard from Ministers across the House today about the financial challenges. I would appreciate it, therefore, if Mr Baker could, in his winding-up speech, touch on what conversations he has had with the Finance Minister. That would be welcome. Ultimately, we have the shared goal, across the House, of ending child poverty, keeping our young people's stomachs full and making sure that they have the support that they need inside and outside school, and we really need to understand what this could look like financially.

Across the North, families are crying out for support. They have a real desire to see the Executive and Assembly make a real difference that they can feel in their lives. I have had conversations with Danny and can tell that he is genuinely passionate about the issue. The SDLP supports the Bill at Second Stage.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Nick Mathison. Before you start, Nick, some Members are confused about the order in which I am calling people to speak. I just wanted to let Members know that I called Cara first because she has been here for the whole debate.

Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): So have I.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Have you been in for the whole debate?

Mr Mathison: I have, yes.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Apologies, Nick: that is my fault.

Mr Mathison: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: no apology required.

I will make some very brief opening remarks as Chair of the Committee for Education. The Committee has not considered issues around holiday hunger in particular detail. The subject has come up at various junctures during deliberations on other matters, and Committee members from across the parties are very much of a mind that anything that can be done to tackle poverty through our schools and education system should be a priority. The Committee has heard about the UNISON campaign for widening access to free school meals and moving towards a universal model. We received an informal briefing on that, but, beyond that, we have not had detailed formal briefings. From the Committee's perspective, therefore, I will leave it at saying that I am sure that, if the Bill passes its Second Stage today, the Committee will be ready to do the necessary scrutiny work. There is, no doubt, a wide range of stakeholders who will be very interested in this policy area and who will want to engage with the Committee on these issues.

Every Member who has spoken in the debate so far has, I think, outlined the fact that we come to a debate on an issue such as this or on a Bill such as this with a degree of regret. None of us wants to be discussing child poverty and the huge challenges that families face, simply because we should not, in this day and age, be dealing with such levels of poverty in our society. Sadly, however, that is where we are, and so I put on record my thanks to the Bill sponsor for introducing the Bill and for taking a proactive approach to try to do something about the issues that so many families face in relation to poverty and the ever-rising cost of living, of which we are all so well aware.

A lot of statistics have been quoted today, but I will add a few more. In 2024, research by the Trussell Trust, which is a key stakeholder, showed that, at that stage, 32% of children in Northern Ireland were growing up in food-insecure households. That is not a figure about which any of us should be casual, because it is a really serious matter. Among those households, 14% had three or more children, compared with 6% of households overall in Northern Ireland. On child poverty, we know that approximately 109,000 children live in relative poverty and 86,000 in absolute poverty. Again, it is easy to trot out such statistics in such a debate, and it can feel trite to do so, but it is important that we take the time to pause, listen and reflect on the real lives, the real children and the real families behind them. I think that we are all agreed that the issues are serious and therefore need a serious response.

I welcome the fact that all parties in the Chamber agree that tackling child poverty should be a priority. Regrettably, however, so far in this mandate, we have not seen a huge amount of proactive action taken, and we have to be clear about that. It is regrettable that the Bill before us today may be the only clear and direct anti-poverty legislation to come before the Assembly in this mandate. I am happy to be corrected if there is something else coming forward from perhaps the Department for Communities of which I am not aware, but my understanding is that this Bill could be it.

My party colleagues and I have already met the Bill sponsor to discuss the legislation. As a party, we recognise the need to ensure that we are providing support for those children most at risk of experiencing poverty, particularly food poverty. We of course want to ensure that any legislation on the issue that we pass reaches as many children in need as possible and does so in the most effective way. On that basis, it is important always to remember that tackling child poverty requires a cross-departmental approach. A single intervention in the education space will not cut it, and we need to be honest about that. There is a need across Departments for the issue to be taken seriously.

The PAC's 'Report on Child Poverty in Northern Ireland' gives a damning account of the child poverty strategy that ran from 2016 to 2022. It states:

It further states:

It appears that the current draft anti-poverty strategy may also fall short of delivering the transformative change that is needed to tackle poverty and its root causes across Northern Ireland. We are therefore potentially still treating symptoms rather than causes.

We know — other Members have referred to this — that school holiday food grants were previously made available to families who were eligible for free school meals from July 2020 until March 2023, so what is proposed today as an intervention is not new. An opportunity was missed following the decision that civil servants then took, when there was no sitting Assembly, to cease funding for the programme. I do not think that the nettle was grasped even to begin to undertake any serious research or analysis of the prevalence and impact of holiday hunger in Northern Ireland, particularly of the impact that the payments that were made under the scheme had. The review of free school meals and the uniform grant eligibility criteria would have been a really good opportunity last year to explore some of that further in order to get an evidence base for the scale and scope of the problem to determine the most effective interventions.

We are therefore at risk in this scenario where there is a lack of clear evidence on which children and families are most impacted on by food poverty, or, to use the language, "holiday hunger", and on what the most effective interventions may be. It is not clear to me whether we have an evidence base that tells us that the children most affected by food poverty are those in receipt of free school meals. Perhaps those on the fringes of entitlement to free school meals who do not receive any support from any source in government are struggling even more than those who may be in receipt of free school meals. I do not know. I do not have the evidence, so I cannot speak to that.

The picture is potentially more complex. It varies from household to household, and it may vary based on the number of children in the household.

The scrutiny of the Bill will be really important to make sure that the lack of a clear evidence base does not mean that we end up making an intervention that feels like the right thing to do, but, potentially, does not target those who need the support the most. However, that is a discussion for the scrutiny stages, when the evidence base can be looked at and we can see where Education Committee lands on the most effective intervention. However, the fact that we are approaching the Bill without a clear evidence base will make that work challenging, and we need to be clear about that.

Over the Easter break, the Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG) published her evaluation of the programmes that address educational disadvantage. Other Members have referenced educational disadvantage, and, clearly, poverty and food poverty feed into the groups of children and young people who are most at risk of experiencing educational disadvantage. Concerningly, the report found that, despite incurring a combined annual spend of over £100 million, the Department of Education cannot currently demonstrate that major programmes aimed at reducing educational disadvantage, including the SEN transformation programme, are successful or deliver value for money. That should give us all pause for thought, and I draw attention to it because it highlights just how important it is that, if we are going to intervene and spend a large sum of public money, we need to be clear that it will make best use of that public money and be the most effective way that any intervention can be made.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): I thank the Member for giving way. Obviously, I will make remarks later, when I respond as the Minister. There is a lot of information that will help inform Members as they try to reach a position on the debate. The Member rightly raises the question about the evidence on how the Bill's provisions will work. One of the fundamental questions that Members must ask themselves is about the guarantee that the welfare payment will result in food being purchased, because there is no means of ensuring that that will be the case, unlike in school, where we can ensure that the funding is delivering its intended purpose.

The other issue that will be fundamentally important to Members, particularly those who will scrutinise the Bill in the Education Committee, is the services that will be cut to provide the funding. The Bill sponsor has indicated that it will cost £20 million. I will give him the evidence that his Bill, if it is passed by the Assembly, will cost £30 million per year by 2033. That will be Department of Education funding that is ring-fenced purely for that purpose. What areas will be cut in a Department that this year has a projected underinvestment of £600 million? Which educational services would those who support the Bill remove to provide funding for its provisions? That is part of the evidence base that we need to see so that Members can justify supporting the Bill.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister, I remind you that interventions are meant to be brief.

Mr Mathison: As it was the Minister of Education, I felt that I should give him the opportunity to have a say on the points that I raised.

I agree that there is a need to understand, at the outset, the evidence base for the nature of the problem and those who are most impact by it to ensure that we can target an intervention appropriately. I do not necessarily agree that we are in the space of saying, "Well, if you do this, you cut that". Ministers should be able to set priorities, and I am sure that there is a range of views around the Chamber about the most effective use of the Education budget.

Mr Baker: Will the Member give way?

Mr Mathison: I will finish my point, and then I will give way to the Bill sponsor.

I would not frame the other issue in the way that the Minister did, because we need to be careful that we do not get into the space of characterising parents as being irresponsible and saying that they will not spend the money on what it is intended to be spent on. However, the Bill needs to be clear about the measure of success. Will it simply be about how many payments are made? Will it be about ensuring that they are targeted at the right people? Will it be about uptake and how many parents who are in receipt of free school meals access the payment? Will there be some other measure of success, such as improved educational outcomes or improved health outcomes? It is not clear how we will measure the success of the Bill should it become law. I agree that evidence is important, but I would not necessarily have characterised it in the way the Minister did.

Mr Baker: I thank the Member for giving way. I was going to make that point. The lowest-income families qualify for free school meals, and the Minister had a wee pop at those families. I did not want the debate to go down that route, but it is clear from his intervention that that is what he is going to do.

The Member mentioned figures. I can reassure Members that my figures were provided by the Assembly's Research and Information Service (RaISe) team, which did great work, and I worked really hard alongside the Bill Office staff to make sure that all of our facts were right. The Minister is probably adding God knows what inflation rate to suit his narrative. As I said in my earlier remarks, it would cost 0·6% of the Education budget. The Minister is happy to spend that sort of percentage of his budget on his own priorities. For example, TransformEd is costing tens of millions of pounds, yet his senior officials will say that that is a small proportion —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Danny.

Mr Baker: — of the budget.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I remind Members that interventions are not speeches. They are meant to be brief. Members should be sitting again shortly after they have got to their feet to make an intervention. That applies to everyone. Go ahead, Nick.

Mr Mathison: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I felt that the Bill sponsor should be given the opportunity to speak to those points. I cannot guarantee that I will give way for as long for any other interventions.

I have covered a fair bit on evidence and on being sure that we have evidence that the output from the Bill will have an impact that we can measure and that we will be able to understand what success looks like. That will be looked at in more detail at Committee Stage.

The NI Audit Office report further highlighted fragmented and inconsistent approaches to evaluation across the programmes, limiting the Department's ability to understand what works and where to channel future investment. That is how the Audit Office is characterising how we measure the Department's current interventions to tackle educational disadvantage. If we are looking seriously at new spend, we need to be clear about how the impact will be measured on the other side of that. We all know about the financial crisis that our education system is facing, and the Minister has highlighted it. "Crisis" is an appropriate word to use. The current budgetary position in Education is dire, and, regrettably, we often see that the people who are impacted most are the families who are least able to afford it. The recent increase in the cost of school meals is an example of where, very often, the costs land at the doors of those who are least able to bear them. When we are in a budgetary crisis, we need to be clear that we do not end up penalising those who are least able to bear its costs.

As I mentioned earlier, tackling child poverty is a cross-departmental issue. Today, obviously, we are looking at a Bill that is exclusively going through the Department of Education and its statutory roles and functions. We can look at it as a cross-Executive issue, not just an issue for Education. The Northern Ireland Audit Office has estimated that tackling child poverty will cost between £850 million and £1 billion per year. Despite the investments that we have put in, we know that we are not always producing the best outcomes for those in need. Often, we end up in a scenario where the community and voluntary sector steps in and plays a large role in closing the gaps where provision cannot meet need. It is important to pay tribute to the organisations that go above and beyond, every day, to support the families, children and young people who are in dire need, and our education staff — teachers, school leaders and classroom assistants — who I know, from stories that I hear, often support families and children out of their own pockets, or engage them with support services in their local communities. We should not be in a scenario where school staff are having to step in in that way, but that is the level of need.

We also have the Executive's anti-poverty strategy. Again, I do not think that we should look continually to the community and voluntary sector to provide the answers to everything. That is important to note, because it is a cross-Executive issue. In his remarks, the Minister is likely to take issue with the fact that this is being funnelled through his Department and not other Departments. In response to an Assembly question on the matter, the Education Minister advised that he had met with the Communities Minister to discuss the issue of child food poverty, including how it can impact on families during and outside school term time, but I am not clear on the outcome from that meeting. I do not see holiday hunger appearing in the strategy or being given any ongoing significant focus from the Education or Communities Ministers. I hope that this debate will be an impetus for us to hear from both Ministers about what they are doing in this space, because, up to now, I have not seen any evidence of that.

From engaging with the Bill sponsor, I understand that the legislation will amend an Education Order, and, despite the fact that this is a cross-departmental issue, it will sit firmly within the remit of the Department of Education. As the legislation progresses, or even today, the Bill sponsor could provide clarity, because I am keen to understand why the decision was taken to just go through the lens of the Department of Education and why multi-departmental solutions were not considered. The issue clearly crosses Education, Communities and Health, and it crosses over the work and responsibilities of those three Departments.

Mr Baker: Thank you for giving way again. I have been very clear from the outset that I think that this is the very least that the Education Department should be doing. I think that other Departments should be doing more, and I would also like to see more private Member's Bills coming forward to deal with child poverty.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for responding. I understand that. We are in a limited and shortened mandate, and I understand that we cannot do everything. I would be interested to see whether there is a way to knit some of this together to see how Departments can engage.

Mr Brooks: I thank the Chair of the Education Committee for giving way. Surely it is not just about what we want to see numerous Departments doing but about whether Education is the right Department to make the right intervention and whether, as I outlined in my speech, what I feel is essentially a welfare payment should come out of an already stretched Education budget.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for his intervention. The best intervention is the Departments that have responsibilities in this area working together and using the provisions of the Children's Services Co-operation Act to come forward with genuinely jointly planned and jointly commissioned services that can impact on those who most need them. I see no evidence of that happening, and we hear that at the Education Committee all the time.

Ms K Armstrong: Will the Member give way?

Mr Mathison: I will give way.

Ms K Armstrong: I will not be very long, I promise. I know that the debate is about legislation so we can all talk for longer, but even so. As you know, I sit on the Committee for Communities, and we are very concerned about the unintended consequences that can arise when people receive an income and whether or not that can be not counted towards universal credit. That is one of the things that I and the Committee will ask the Bill sponsor to confirm, because it is Westminster that will have to allow that to happen.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for that intervention.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Mathison: I will not give way.

I will raise that issue in my remarks later, and I imagine that the Bill sponsor will address that.

A significant sum of money is being proposed. It has been suggested that it will cost £20 million a year. The Minister perhaps disputes those figures. I am clear that there are obvious benefits in what is being proposed, and I think that all of us want to see children being able to receive a nutritious diet outside term time. I do not think that any of us will object to that. My party and I will support the Bill's progress through Second Stage today, but, given the current budgetary position, we have to be clear that we are looking at a recurring financial commitment. Have all the options been explored to ensure that the proposed spend is the most effective way to do it? We can work through that at Committee Stage. I would like to know what other options have been considered, because, to me, a whole range of other things could be looked at. We have talked before at the Education Committee, and have debated it in motions, about auto-enrolment for free school meals, and we have talked about widening access to free school meals. We have talked about moving to a universal approach and about how to maximise uptake of free school meals. There is a whole range of different things, so it is important that we have a clear sense of what options have been considered during the process that led to the Bill being presented to the Assembly.

I want to reference the research done by the Commissioner for Children and Young People, because it speaks to some of the questions about what is the most effective intervention. Research by the commissioner has raised some:

The commissioner asked whether that is the most effective way of doing it, and the Bill very much ties interventions to that. The paper highlights the fact that entitlement to free school meals is often a poor indicator of a child being in poverty, saying:

That is a stark statistic. You could have 41% of families in poverty not benefiting from the intervention. Again, that raises for me the question of ensuring that, if we are going to commit to the spend, it is the most effective mechanism that we can deliver.

The Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) has also provided data. It suggests that fewer than one in three children in poverty are in receipt of free school meals, that the majority of children currently in receipt of free school meals were not experiencing poverty and that it was those on the edge of entitlement who may be more at risk of experiencing poverty. Some of those statistics give me a little cause for concern that, by tying it so tightly to free school meals, we could miss out some of the children who need the intervention most.

Mr Baker: Thank you, Nick, for giving way. I suppose that I need to point out that the guidance that we have been given by the Speaker is that, when we bring our Members' Bills forward, our policy intent has to be narrow. I would love to have written much wider legislation, but I am not the Minister and do not sit on the Executive. If it is too wide-reaching, you will get nothing done.

Mr Mathison: I understand that. For me, it is about wanting to put on record at this stage that it is important that we consider all of that in the round. I am clear that I am happy to support the intentions and policy intent behind the Bill. It is about ensuring that we have the right evidence base and that there are not other, more effective interventions that may well, potentially, deliver better outcomes.

I will go back to my colleague Kellie Armstrong's point about wider issues in the benefits system, which is really the only other issue that I want to put on the record today. I want to note a slight concern, without saying that it will inevitably be an outworking of the Bill, that, if we make the payments, we must ensure that they will not impact negatively on anybody's current and ongoing benefit entitlement. Will appropriate exemptions be applied to means-tested benefits or the likes of carer's allowance that have very tight and narrow income thresholds? Does it require Westminster to deliver any of that, or can consequential amendments arise for the Department for Communities to take forward? I am happy for the Bill sponsor to speak to those assurances in his winding-up speech. We would not want to leave anybody worse off on the back of receiving any of the payments.

Alliance is happy to support the proposal at Second Stage. We recognise and are clear that there is a need to invest in anti-poverty measures to support the most vulnerable learners in education. We remain concerned that, across Departments, not enough resource is being directed into that area. However, there are those few points on which we would like to see greater clarity, particularly the evidence base that this intervention will make the greatest impact, given the significant funding that is being committed to it. Again, those are issues that we can explore at Committee Stage. I look forward to engaging in that process over the next number of weeks. I thank the Bill sponsor for bringing it forward.

Mr Burrows: I will keep my comments broad and high-level. I thank the Bill sponsor for bringing it to the House. The intent is noble, and the debate is necessary. It is something that we should discuss. I will, therefore, support the Bill's progress to the next stage so that we can give it proper scrutiny. However, scrutiny it does need.

Let me just say this at the outset: there is no greater issue than dealing with young people — our future — the most vulnerable and those who are hungry. I used to be a food bank volunteer before I came into politics. We used to go round with hampers of food. It was really humbling when the door opened and a child took the food from your hand. They were literally waiting for that food in order to have their meal. There were many days when I left a home feeling almost ashamed at the situation in which I found myself in society; you have so much and are giving something to people who have literally nothing and are waiting for the doorbell to ring for you to feed them. Of course, there are the long-term impacts of not getting quality, nutritious meals on your education, health and the age to which you live. We know that there are places where people live 10 years longer than somebody who lives round the corner because of health inequalities and poverty. It has an impact on the justice system. All the poverty stuff has a longer-term impact.

Nobody could argue that we should not make sure that our children and young people get nutritious meals every day. Clearly, there is a gap when someone needs support during term time but suddenly cannot get it during holiday time. Therefore, there is almost a logical appeal to what Mr Baker has put forward. That is why we will vote to let the Bill go through to the scrutiny stage. We need to scrutinise the Bill, because, of course, the Chamber does not have a universally great record of considering unintended consequences. There are some issues, such as whether the payments will have an impact on someone's universal credit payments.

Some people do not want to say this, but I will say it: some parents — just a few — are irresponsible. The majority of parents are responsible. There are parents who are millionaires and are irresponsible, and there are parents who have nothing but are responsible. It is nothing to do with money; it is a fact that some parents can be irresponsible. We need to make sure that, if the state is to intervene and give money to people for their children's food, it actually ends up in their children's mouths. That is a sensible step to take. We should not shy away from that. We are legislators, after all.

Mr Mathison raised a good point about the fact that there are children whose parents are just under the threshold. They do not get free school meals all the way through term time, and, suddenly, not only will they not get them then but those who get them will continue to get them during the summer. That is another thing that we need to work through and be sure that we are doing the right thing.

Mr Baker: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: I will give way to Mr Baker.

Mr Baker: That is very much the reason why I say that the Bill is only one piece of a wider puzzle. The threshold is a piece of the puzzle. Universal free school meals are a piece of that puzzle. There are pieces of the puzzle in the Department of Health, the Department for Communities and across the board, but my private Member's Bill is about the Department of Education. I am not shying away from that.

Mr Burrows: Sometimes I am puzzled by this place. I will come on to that in a second when I talk about puzzles.

The Bill has a noble intent. It is on a very important issue. We can look at it in detail at the Education Committee, but we need to scrutinise it and make sure that it is affordable and that it is not just a good use of money but the best use of money, because that money comes from somewhere else. There is no such thing as paying Peter and not taking from Paul. The money has to come from somewhere. Where will it come from? Should it come from more places than just the Education budget? Are we to have a multi-year Budget? Will all those things be decided?

Mr Givan: I appreciate the Member's giving way. He makes an important point, which is that the Assembly voted on and passed legislation on hospital car parking introduced by a Member of the same party. The Minister from Mr Burrows's party has introduced a Bill not to implement that legislation, because doing so would require other aspects of the Department of Health to cut services. The view taken by the Executive, who have supported the Health Minister, was that it should be deferred again. This Bill involves substantially greater funding, and that would need to be taken from other educational services. If we were to apply that same logic, Members would not support the Bill, not because it does not have noble intent — I will speak to that and commend the Member who has introduced it because of the sincerity on which it is based — but because of the realpolitik of the financial position that we face and the approach that we are taking on another Bill. If Members vote for this Bill, why would they support the Health Minister in deferring charges that were brought in through a private Member's Bill? There is an inconsistency in that approach.

Mr Burrows: I thank the Minister for his contribution. I was going to come on to free hospital car parking, because it is of noble intent. Looking in from the outside, you would think that it would be a jolly good thing to do, but, of course, it has consequences elsewhere. That is what we need to guard against, but there is merit in scrutinising this Bill further.

I will say this to Mr Baker: your party is the biggest party in the Executive and includes the First Minister and the Finance Minister. People looking in from outside will say, "How on earth is it the case in our system of government that a Back-Bench MLA from a party of government can introduce a private Member's Bill that, the Minister of Education in the same Government will say, he cannot afford and when the person who is in charge of the money is in that Member's party?".

Mr Baker: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: No, I will not give way.

People looking in will think that that is mad, that it is no way in which to run a Government and that it should be a shared responsibility. I just wanted to make those broad points.

I am happy that we will vote the Bill through to its scrutiny stage, but scrutiny is required. That is not a blank cheque or a guarantee that we will support the Bill in any way, shape or form, but the issue is still important, so we should fully explore it. To make sure that it is the very best money that we can spend, however, we need to look at other issues, because every penny that we spend on one thing is not spent on something else, be that on treating black mould in classrooms, on classroom assistants, on training or on books. We need to make sure that we spend wisely, that money is targeted and that we get the best value for our money.

I will give way, after which I will conclude.

Mr Baker: It is the right of any Member to introduce legislation. In recent times, your party tabled a motion calling for the payments to be reinstated. As I said earlier, it is easy to say yes to a motion. I introduced the Bill, and I know that it is difficult for everyone to make a decision on it, but that is what we are here to do. I am not shying away from the fact that the Bill would have ramifications. I know that, but I think that this is the right thing for us to do, so we should do it. There is no point in tabling motions if you are then not willing to have the drive to introduce primary legislation.

Mr Burrows: The responsible thing to do, especially given the track record of the Assembly, is to scrutinise legislation deeply, vote it through to the next stage and then delve into it in granular detail, not just wave it through because it sounds like a good idea. I welcome the fact that we are dealing with legislation. It makes a refreshing change from questions for urgent oral answer, non-binding motions, Matters of the Day and Venezuela, Iran and all the other global stuff that comes before —.

Mr Carroll: What about Trump?

Mr Burrows: Trump?

Mr Carroll: Your mate.

Mr Burrows: My mate Trump? How he is my mate I do not know. I will correct the Member, even though we are straying from the issue before us, because it is —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry, but you are straying. I have given you a lot of latitude, because you have cleverly thrown in mentions of poverty every so often, but that ends now.

Mr Burrows: There is a poverty of truth

, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I challenged Mr Trump. I went with a letter in my hand, and I said, "Mr Trump, I challenge you about your conduct".

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry, Mr Burrows, but I had not finished making my point.

Mr Burrows: Sorry.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Do you want to resume your seat?

Mr Burrows: I apologise.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: This has been a great debate, and I do not want to stifle anyone from contributing, even those who want to shout from the Back Benches. I will tolerate that up to a point, but, when Members stray from the intent of the Bill, I will bring them back to it.

I am sorry for interrupting you when you were in full flow, but it was fair not only to you but to those speaking after you who have eventually joined the debate, which is great, that I did so.

Mr Burrows: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I apologise. I got carried away. Yes, there was a poverty of truth there, because I chastised Mr Trump.

I will move straight back to the matter in hand.

If the Bill costs £20 million a year, funding it would be eminently achievable if there were a bit of wise stewardship of public money in this place corporately. Some £40 million has been spent on taxis, while procurement is an indictment of our public service. We waste money hand over fist. Five times that amount has been spent on the A5. That money could have fed our children for five years. Some £100 million has been spent on the A5, yet not a single metre of tarmac has been laid.

A number of issues are raised by the Bill, but the Bill also highlights our dysfunctionality. I am happy to support it in order to get it through to its next stage, where we will look at it in detail on the Education Committee, but we need to make sure that we get the best value for our money and that, collectively, we take responsibility for tackling poverty and focus on the real issues that affect us in Northern Ireland.

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You are welcome.

Mrs Mason: I welcome the introduction of the important legislation that my colleague Danny Baker has introduced. As has been said, if the Bill is passed, it will, during the school holidays, support more than 90,000 children who are in receipt of free school meals, ensuring that no child is left hungry simply because the school gates are closed.

However, this is about so much more than numbers; it is about our responsibility and duty to protect the children who need it most.

Let us be very clear today — David Brooks mentioned it earlier — that children do not fall into poverty by themselves. Those children do not choose poverty or hunger, nor do they choose the circumstances that they are born into. They should never have to pay the price for political failure or economic decisions that are completely beyond their control. Poverty does not just shape childhood; it limits the future. It does not stop at the classroom door. That is something that the Minister of Education and his colleagues need to wake up to and realise. Every time that we fail to act, we are telling children that being left behind is acceptable. No one should ever stand over that.

I have spoken to teachers across the North who are witnessing this every single day. Children are arriving to school hungry. They are struggling to concentrate and to stay awake. Staff are reaching into their own pockets to buy cereal bars, and they are keeping drawers full of snacks just to try to get those children through the school day. How on earth can we accept that and expect children to thrive in their education? Surely that very simple, real-life example alone should be enough to compel any Education Minister to act and to prioritise ensuring that those children receive a decent hot meal and that they are not left without support during the summer months when they are, perhaps, at their most vulnerable.

The soaring cost of living is pushing countless families to the brink. Far too many parents are facing the cruel and impossible choice between heating their homes and feeding their children. At a time of global instability, including Mr Burrows's mate Donald Trump's reckless and illegal war in Iran, which is sending economic shock waves across the world, it is the most vulnerable in our society who are left to carry the heaviest burden. Mr Burrows, I am delighted that you find it so funny that we are talking about children in poverty and how that war is further impacting on them.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Mason: No, I will not. [Interruption.]

You find it acceptable to sit and laugh. That is why we must step up. It is why we have not a choice but a moral obligation to act. Yet, what do we see? We have a former DUP leader, Arlene Foster, calling for cuts to welfare in order to boost defence spending. We have sitting DUP Education and Communities Ministers gaslighting the public, claiming that there is no money to tackle poverty and disadvantage while actively blocking the agreement of a multi-year Budget that would allow Departments to plan, invest and start delivering.

In his earlier intervention, the Minister asked what services would need to be cut. I then asked why money can always be found for war but not for hungry children. Why can millions of pounds be found for pet projects such as the TransformED reform agenda? Why can hundreds of thousands of pounds be spent on mobile phone pouches, yet when it comes putting food on a child's plate, suddenly the coffers are empty? This is not about resources but about priorities. The priority must be our children. Protecting children is not optional; it is the most fundamental duty that we have.

The Bill is therefore not just welcome but necessary. In the absence of leadership from the DUP Minister, Sinn Féin will step up to deliver for those children and young people. No child should go without food; it really is as simple as that. While the Bill alone will not end child poverty, it is a vital step forward. It is a practical, real intervention that will make a difference to families across the North. As has already been said, it must be seen as part of a wider ambition. The Department for Communities should go back to the drawing board with the anti-poverty strategy. The Bill will, hopefully, move us towards universal free school meals, a society where no child is left behind and the beginning of truly tackling educational underachievement. When a child is hungry, they cannot learn or thrive, and we as a society are failing them.

The Bill should be our moment to act. We need all parties in the Assembly to get behind the legislation. As Danny has already mentioned, we in Sinn Féin stand ready to work with anybody who wants to scrutinise the Bill to make it the very best that it can be. We need to be serious about ending holiday hunger, tackling educational underachievement and fulfilling our shared duty to ensure that every child, regardless of their background, is supported, protected and given the strongest possible start in life. No child should ever be left behind, and no child should ever go hungry.

Mrs Guy: I support the Bill's passing Second Stage. I will welcome getting to look at it in more detail in the Education Committee, but I will say a number of things about it up front. I wish that the Bill was not needed. Child poverty is absolutely intolerable. I wish that the original scheme had not been withdrawn by a permanent secretary without political oversight or accountability during an Assembly collapse. I also wish that the Department for Communities had listened to calls for a long-term life cycle approach to tackling poverty, and child poverty in particular, but there is no action plan, no targets and no real strategy for children living in poverty. The Bill, therefore, is not only the best option that we have to deliver something for those children right now but the only new pathway available. When faced with the choice between doing something and doing nothing for children who are facing holiday hunger, I will absolutely vote to do something.

The framing of the Bill externally will be tackling holiday hunger, but I will broaden the context slightly, because we are also talking about childhood. School holidays are a precious time for families to make memories with their children. If these payments mean that a family can budget to provide a treat for their children during the holidays, I am so, so comfortable with that. I also hope that the scheme, if implemented, might offer an evidence base that expanding this type of support to kids who fall just outside the threshold is worth exploring.

Ultimately, the Bill is about child poverty and food security. There are well-rehearsed and devastating statistics and reports that show the impact that poverty has on the lives of children in Northern Ireland. There are impacts on education, health and future life opportunities. They are repeated in the Chamber time and again, so we need to ensure that they do not lose their meaning and that the reality of those reports and statistics does not escape us. Dr Julie-Anne Maney, a paediatric consultant, speaking to the BBC in an interview about the impact of child poverty, said that "poverty obliterates children's futures". She spoke about repeatedly witnessing the reality of child hunger and malnutrition and about the awful disparity between children from disadvantaged families and those who have more. That is the devastating reality.

Of course, the Bill does not promise to deal with child poverty, its complicated and myriad causes and its huge number of consequences, but it would ease the financial burden that some families face over school holiday periods. It would help to feed children and young people who would otherwise turn to food banks or go without. It might, in some way, support parents who are struggling with the rising costs of rent, childcare, heating and essentials.

Following the end of the free school meals payment, Northern Ireland is now the only region in the UK without a specific government funding scheme or a programme for holiday food. Given that we have had a recent school meal payment scheme here, I will be interested at Committee Stage to understand in more detail the impact that that had on the lives of children and young people and whether the mechanism that was used then could be used again. I also note the equality and human rights policy screening of the discontinuation of the holiday food payment grant scheme at the end of 2022-23, which noted the disproportionate impact that ending the scheme would have on children with disabilities.

Of course, any proposal with budget implications will rightly be scrutinised, particularly when Departments are under significant financial pressure. If the Bill progresses to the next stage, I will be keen to understand how the financial responsibility could be shared with other Departments, because, fundamentally, the Bill has the potential to deliver long-term savings. The organisation Children in Northern Ireland (CiNI) has rightly asked us to consider the cost of intervention alongside the much greater long-term cost of child poverty, including its impacts on health, education and wider public services.

When set against the scale of need, with tens of thousands of children affected, and the relatively low cost of delivery, the Bill feels like the right approach. Committee Stage will provide an important opportunity to examine the issues in detail, including how the Children's Services Co-operation Act (Northern Ireland) 2015 could support the effective delivery of such a scheme. There will be those who rightly point to pressures in the Education budget. We all recognise that our public services are underfunded, but we also know that there are inefficiencies in the system. School leaders consistently highlight waste in areas such as procurement and maintenance contracts. If identifying funding measures such as holiday hunger drives improvement in how resources are used more broadly across the education system, on balance, that trade-off is worth making.

Before I wrap up, I echo the point that my colleague made about making sure that the Bill has no unintended consequences when it comes to benefits received: the outworking of the Bill cannot be to make people worse off than they are now.

Mr Baker: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Guy: Yes.

Mr Baker: I am very conscious of that issue. I am meeting officials tomorrow. Based on my research and the work that I have done, I do not believe that a disregard would be needed for a wide variety of people. I think that, if that were the case, the Minister would work with us at pace, if that were the will of the House anyway, but I am meeting officials tomorrow.

Mrs Guy: I appreciate the intervention.

I support the Bill's passage at Second Stage, and I look forward to getting it into Committee and having a really good look at it. I thank the Member for bringing the Bill forward.

Mr Sheehan: I thank and commend my colleague Danny Baker for bringing forward this important legislation. Fundamentally, it is about trying to ensure that some children — it will not deal with all children — who currently go hungry during school holiday periods will not in future because their parents will have the resources to ensure that they are fed. I say that it will not deal with all children because, as many contributors today have pointed out, there are families who do not meet the threshold for free school meals. We are talking particularly about low-paid workers, who are sometimes referred to as the working poor.

A couple of years ago, I held a meeting with a number of low-paid workers from the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust. Some of them had two or three children at school and they did not qualify for free school meals, so those parents were having to hand out £60 or £70 a week to pay for meals in school. Imagine what that amounts to per month, coming out of a low-paid worker's salary. The Bill is not going to deal with that issue, and there is no pretence that it will.

When it comes to progressive measures to deal with hunger among children, we are way behind all the other jurisdictions in these islands. As we sit here in the Assembly, what is more important to deal with than children going hungry in our society? I cannot think of anything more important than making sure that children are properly fed. All the evidence shows that, if children are not properly nourished, they are going to fall behind in their learning at school. The consequences of that are that they will probably leave school without qualifications. Again, the evidence shows that, where young people leave school without qualifications, they are more likely to be unemployed, more likely to have chronic ill health, more likely to have mental health issues, more likely to take their own life, and more likely to come into contact with the criminal justice system. They will also have a lower life expectancy than others from more affluent backgrounds. Those are the consequences of what we are talking about when we refer to children being hungry. I cannot think of anything more commendable that any society could do than ensure that its children are well nourished and looked after.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for giving way. I do not disagree with anything that you have said. How could anyone possibly argue against wanting to ensure that children who are hungry are fed? Do you also agree that we need to be sure that the money to address the issue goes to the children who are most at risk of experiencing that hunger, and that we need to understand the evidence and data to make sure that we are properly targeting any intervention?

Mr Sheehan: I absolutely agree with the Chair of the Committee. There seems to be broad consensus in the Assembly today that this is an issue that we should deal with.

I am absolutely sure that the sponsor of the Bill is open to discussions with other Members and other parties on how we make sure that, as the legislation progresses through the Assembly, it is targeted properly at those who most need it and those who are most at risk.

There is a simple proposition here. If we accept that it is right to support children with free school meals during term times, it follows logically that we should support them during school holidays, too, because hunger and poverty do not stop when the school gates close; yet that is exactly the cliff edge that many families face. Around 90,000 children are entitled to free school meals, but, when the holidays come, that support disappears overnight.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr Sheehan: Sure, yes.

Mr Brooks: Does the Member agree that there is clearly an argument for free school meals as an educational intervention? We know that children study better in school when they are well fed. However, outwith their educational experience, it is a welfare issue, rather than an educational one.

Mr Sheehan: There is some merit in what you say and a lot of merit in Departments cooperating and collaborating. However, a couple of weeks ago, in here, around the issue of summer schemes for special schools, it was clear that the two Ministers who had responsibility for that could not even pick up the phone and talk to each other.

Everyone in the Assembly knew that this legislation was coming and what it was about, so I will ask this question and leave it hanging there. How many conversations have there been between the Minister of Education, the Minister for Communities and the Minister of Health to implement the Children's Services Co-operation Act; to collaborate and cooperate around issues where children are going hungry? They are most vulnerable people in society: young children who are born into situations over which they have no control. Some may end up in loving families, where their parents do everything that they possibly can for them. Some of them will end up in dysfunctional families. Some will end up in dire poverty. Why should a child who is born into an affluent background have a better start in life than somebody who is born into a poor background? Why should we discriminate against children on the basis of how much their parents earn or the level of poverty or affluence that they live in? Every child should have the same start in life. That is what the Assembly should be arguing for. That is what we should be in here batting for. I say it again: we have seen evidence of lack of cooperation. Let us see greater cooperation among the Ministers.

We know the reality behind all this. Food bank use is at record levels, and it will go up again with the current crisis of the war with Iran. Some 74% of food parcels are going to families with children. We saw a 49% spike in demand after holiday payments were cut. A number of Members referred to the fact that those holiday payments were being made between 2020 and 2023. The payments were being made by DUP Ministers, and I commend those Ministers for making those payments. Unfortunately, they were not on a statutory basis. Therefore, when it was left to the permanent secretary to make a decision, that was one of the funding cuts.

Let us be clear. This is not just about food: it is about education, health and giving kids the best start in life. As my colleague Danny Baker pointed out, many in the Chamber have supported non-binding motions on holiday hunger, but today is the moment to move beyond motions and into action; to put our money where our mouth is. Yes, there will be those who raise concern about the costs. We are talking in the region of £20 million to £21 million, according to the RaISe team in the Assembly. Let us put that in context. First, it is 0·6% of the overall Education budget. We have seen hundreds of thousands of pounds spent by this Minister on phone pouches. What is more important: phone pouches or food for children who are going hungry?

Mr Givan: I appreciate the Member's giving way. One of his colleagues did not give way, and, in this debate, it is important that we do that. I will do so when I am responding. The Member has posed a question about putting our money where our mouth is. I do not think that you can compare capital expenditure of £200,000 on a scheme that, for various reasons, is helping children in schools with one that would cost a recurring — I will give the figures — £30 million a year. That is not credible. If he is serious about our putting our money where our mouth is, would he support the tabling of an amendment to reduce the budget of every Department by the equivalent of £20 million or £30 million a year? Would he support an amendment saying that that was dedicated, ring-fenced funding that sits outside every Department? This is, as the Member has said, the most important thing that we can do. In the same way that childcare funding is a separate ring-fenced pot that does not sit in my Department, will he support an amendment that says that the Executive will, before they allocate any funding to any Department, set aside sufficient funding to implement the Bill that his party colleague has introduced?

Mr Sheehan: I will tell you what I would support. I would support the Minister's prioritising his own budget. I mentioned the phone pouches. Millions of pounds have been poured into the reform agenda that was lifted from a failed experiment in England. The DUP has ignored the recommendations of the independent review of education and proposed that a managing authority for the controlled sector be set up. I am happy to give way to the Minister if he will get up and tell us how much that will cost, given that it will be a recurrent cost. Is that more important than children going hungry?

Mr Givan: As I have said before, that will save money, because we are wasting millions of pounds on a failed structure that does not support controlled schools. I appreciate that he will put out a statement, as will others in his party, that TransformED is a waste of money. Tell that to the teachers and principals from every sector, including the Irish-medium sector, which he will speak to in addressing his Member's Bill tomorrow. Principals from every sector, including the Catholic-maintained, controlled and integrated sectors, have invested a huge amount of time and effort to develop curriculum assessment and are supportive of it. The Member, in sweeping it away because he wants to make a point about me, is sweeping away those who have engaged from across the sector, some of whom may even vote for his party.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Lads — it is the lads at this stage — may I remind you to return to the Bill? Thank you.

Mr Sheehan: My question to the Minister asked him to tell the Assembly how much it will cost to set up the managing authority for the controlled sector and what the recurring cost will be over the next x number of years. He did not give us a figure, but I can tell everybody here that it will amount to a significant number of millions of pounds. We have seen money used for the Minister's various pet projects, including state-of-the-art pitches for a school that was already awash with sporting facilities. Let us not forget, as Mr Burrows mentioned, the exorbitant amount being given out for transport, including £83 a mile being paid to taxi operators, with at least 30 taxi operators receiving over £1,000 a week. So, spare us the lectures about affordability. If you really want to prioritise your budget, prioritise what should be a priority. Stopping children going hungry during school holidays should be a priority.

This Bill is about targeted, direct support to families who need it most. It builds on a system that is already there and will provide direct payments to parents. It is a good Bill. It is practical and proportionate, and it addresses a real and growing need. No one is suggesting or pretending that, on its own, it will solve child poverty, but it is a meaningful step, and one that we can take now. Let us therefore work together to get it over the line. Let us move beyond warm words and non-binding motions to delivering real support. If we really believe that every child deserves a fair start, that cannot stop at the end of term. I urge Members to support the Bill.

Mr Martin: Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I had not planned to speak to the Bill, but I thought that you would prefer me to say something rather than make sustained interventions.

I will pick up on the criticism that the Deputy Chair of the Education Committee made of the Minister for not answering a question. I will give the Floor back to him, because he did not answer the Minister's question, which was about whether the Bill sponsor's party would support an amendment to ring-fence the money —.

Mr Baker: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: I will when I have made some progress.

That would ensure that it does not come purely out of the Department of Education's budget but is instead ring-fenced by the Executive. I will give way to the Bill sponsor.

Mr Baker: Thank you. Again, the Bill is only one piece of the puzzle. As I have said many times, it does not go far enough, so it is the least that the Executive could do.

When it comes to amendments, I need to remind the House that 11 amendments that were tabled to a piece of legislation that went through the Education Committee previously were not accepted by the Speaker. We were given guidelines for Members' Bills that stated that they were to be narrow in their policy intent. We have already heard today about people just missing thresholds — 100% — but if we were to start to get into that, would we be widening the Bills scope? I am up for having conversations with everyone, but I have no idea whether the Speaker will accept any proposed amendments. What I know is that this is the best example of a narrow policy that I can introduce by way of legislation. The Bill would help 90,000 children, and that is the best place for us to start.

Mr Martin: I thank the Bill sponsor for that response. If the Bill passes its Second Stage today, the Education Committee will look at those things. I understand the context in which he makes his points.

I will pick up on the reference that his colleague who has just left the Chamber, the Member for South Down, made about having money for war but not for education. As far as I am aware, the Education Minister and the Executive do not spend any money on war. Certainly, no recurrent or non-ring-fenced money in the Education budget heads in that direction.

There is no one in the Chamber who does not want to see an end to poverty. That has been reflected in the speeches today. Everyone, regardless of their political hue, would like to see an end to poverty in Northern Ireland. No one wants to see children go hungry, whether that means their going to school hungry or their being hungry over the school holidays. No one would support that happening.

The Bill sponsor's figures for its cost come to about £21 million. The Minister has stated that that cost is recurrent. That means, in effect, that that amount of money would be spent every year and would come out of the total allocated to the Department of Education. In my earlier comments, I asked about its being ring-fenced. My understanding is that, if the Bill passes and becomes law, it will be the Education Department that will have to fund that £21 million in one way or another.

My understanding — this is, I think, accepted to a reasonable extent by the Assembly — is that the draft Budget that the Bill sponsor's colleague the Finance Minister brought forward leaves the Education Department about £600 million short for next year. I am sure that Members understand what that means. Those are fairly technical issues.

Essentially, when we open the books for next year and the Education Minister, as with any other Minister, has to try to make his Department work effectively, providing the necessary support and the required salaries and payments, he will start off £600 million shy of what he needs. His is not the only Department that will face into that.

Mr Sheehan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: I will, indeed, give way to the Deputy Chair.

Mr Sheehan: The Member is majoring on the Education budget, and that is fair enough. In my contribution, I talked about prioritising, and I commended DUP Ministers who previously provided funding for this purpose. At that time, Marcus Rashford, the well-known footballer in England, had a campaign of his own to ensure that children were fed during school holidays. He was eulogised in the media not just in England but here, yet we had brought in holiday payments before his campaign started and did not get a mention in the media at all. Maybe there is a challenge for the media as well, if we can bring the funding back. The media keep saying that we deliver nothing and we do nothing here, but what could be more important than making sure that there is food in children's mouths? We can do that through the Bill, and that should be the priority.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for that contribution. He is exactly right that there was, at that time, a campaign by footballer Marcus Rashford — a Manchester United footballer, I believe. For transparency, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, at the time that that was introduced, I was a special adviser to the Education Minister who brought the measure through. It is probably best that I get that on the record. I do not necessarily disagree with what the Member said.

I will make a little progress on the main point of what I am saying. There is no question about anyone in the Chamber's wanting to end child poverty or child hunger or wanting to support our children, regardless of how they were brought into this world and what part of society they inhabit. Surely, every Member wants the best for those children. As this is a legislative Chamber, however, we need to work within the bounds of reality, and part of that reality is budgets. Before I took that intervention, I was simply making the case that, as we move into next year, the Education budget is £600 million short. Before we do anything, the Executive and this Education Minister have to find £600 million to run education in Northern Ireland — that will be £620 million, if we put the Bill through.

Mr Baker: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: I will expand on that point, but I will give way to the Bill sponsor.

Mr Baker: I suppose that we could make the point that it is 0·6% of the overall Education budget. Working it out quickly, TransformED is 0·36% of the budget in its first year, and, in the year after that, it will be something similar to 0·6%. We can play the game of saying that what you spend on is down to priorities; it is about what you want to do with it. That is what I mean, and I make no bones about it: we are in here to make difficult decisions, and that is what this will be.

Mr Martin: I thank the Bill sponsor. I will pick up on that point. He made reference to the spend of £20 million being, I think, 0·6% of the Education budget. I will look across the Chamber to see whether anyone nods. OK, there is a wee bit of nodding from the far side. My understanding is that, when teachers' salaries and special educational needs spending are added together, they make up about 80% or 85% of the budget. I do not know the exact figure and am now looking at the Education Minister to see whether he is nodding, but SEN and salaries together are in the region of 80% to 85%. If we call it the "disposable income" that the Education Minister or any Minister has to do other things, it is quite a small amount. It is not 0·6% —

Mr Baker: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: I will give way in one wee second, Danny. I do not have the maths — I was not planning to speak today, otherwise I would have had my iPhone out to do some maths — but I can say that it is considerably more than 0·6%. I just wanted to make that point, because the statutory functions of the Department are really important. The Minister has to pay teachers — that is a statutory function. SEN is statutory. Certain things have to be done for those children and rightly so. The Department of Education faces really significant spend on salaries and SEN. That leaves considerably smaller margins for other spend, some of which is really important. I will get on to that, but I will give way to the Bill sponsor first.

Mr Baker: You made an interesting point. I call that a fugazi. What you did there was interesting. Officials come in and do the exact same thing at our Committee. On 10 December, a senior official came in and used that sort of language: "Of the overall budget, it is only 0·4%" or whatever they said — "It is a small proportion". They were talking about the overall budget when it comes to TransformED. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say that we have disposable money and only take the percentage off that. If officials and senior officials are going to come to the Committee and play that game in front of MLAs, come on.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Peter, I remind you and everyone else that the Second Stage debate is very general. You can talk about the principles of the Bill, but some of you are starting to stray from that. I know that you are talking about affordability — I appreciate that — but can we get back to the core principles of the Bill?

Mr Martin: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I will not stray outside your advice.

I will do my best to answer the Bill sponsor. I do not dispute his comments, and I have learned a new word: "fugazi". I will put that into ChatGPT later and find out what it means. I accept the 0·6% figure or the figure that he quoted for the curriculum of 0·4%. I was simply making the point that, when we look at the Education budget, we see that the amount of what we might call "disposable income" or "extraneous income" that the Minister has to spend on given projects is considerably less than the entirety of the Education budget, which stands at £2·8 billion. You are right: it is about choices.

I will finish on that point. I look at this mainly from an economics background. Our job involves lots of economics, because it is about making the best decisions that have the most impact on those whom we are trying to help and that provide value for money. If the money is not ring-fenced by the Executive and if there is a requirement in the Bill, which is the case as it stands, that the Department of Education, regardless of whether, after next May, it is this Minister or another Minister who inhabits the post, has to find that money — the question has been asked before — what do we not do in order to fund the additional payment? Let us say that it is £21 million. How do we fund that from the Education budget? How do we fund that from the 15% of, let us call it, "disposable income" that the Minister has to hand? There are some important things within that, one of which is the extended schools programme. Is this the sort of thing that, you would say, is more important or, framing it in the Bill sponsor's words, is this more of a priority than the extended schools programme?

Mr Sheehan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: I will give way.

Mr Sheehan: You said it yourself: it is about priorities. Why do we send children to school? To learn. The evidence shows that, if children are hungry, they will not learn. What could be a greater priority than ensuring that, when children sit down in school, they are not hungry, they are fed and they are ready to learn? We can transform the education system, bring in a new curriculum and so on, but, if we are not addressing the fundamental problem of children being hungry in the classroom, it does not matter what reforms we bring in, because we will end up with the same results. That is where prioritisation comes into the equation. Thanks for letting me in.

Mr Martin: I will always let the Deputy Chair of the Education Committee in. He is a very important person. Forgive me, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker; I will try to address his points, even if we are starting to stray.

The curriculum is really important. That has been referenced by the Member and by the Bill sponsor. The curriculum is crucial. We must have the right curriculum in Northern Ireland so that children can learn really well. I have my views on what that curriculum should look like. My party colleague, who happens to be the Education Minister, has views as well, and you probably have them, but there are lots of experts out there who have agreed on the issue. We want the right curriculum for our kids in Northern Ireland so that they learn really well, and it will cost money to do that. It has been identified as a priority because the curriculum affects every child in Northern Ireland. No one will stand in the Chamber and say, "We do not want the best curriculum that we can have. We want something that is substandard when compared with Finland, Singapore or any other country in the world". We want the best.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Peter, I have indulged you by allowing you to talk about other things to make your point, but you are now talking about the curriculum rather than poverty. Thank you.

Mr Martin: You are very indulgent, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I was doing my best to answer Pat's question.

Mr Sheehan: You have not answered it.

Mr Martin: I am not allowed to. You strayed into the curriculum, and you are going to get me told off.

Mr Sheehan: What happens to the curriculum if the kids are hungry?

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Folks, you are starting to stray beyond the debate. It has been a passionate debate, and people feel passionately about it. However, broad as the principles of the debate are, I will not tolerate people shouting back and forth, Pat, OK?

Peter, go ahead.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: I will give way to my colleague.

Mr Brooks: The Member raised the point that free school meals contribute to a pupil's ability to learn. That is absolutely right, and that is why we give free school meals, but that context is not applicable to what the Bill will bring forward, which is to tackle holiday hunger.

Mr Martin: I certainly agree with my colleague, and he has made the point well. I do not disagree with the Member opposite. He was absolutely right when he said that kids need to be fed. Not only is that an important thing to do but it helps children to learn. Other Members have referenced that point today, and it is what the free school meal payment is designed to do. Obviously, there is a difference between free school meal payments during term time and what we are discussing today.

I have not explored my final point, but it is about what we choose not to do in order to fund the Bill. It is about the opportunity costs. The Chair of the Education Committee strayed into the area, although he focused more on how we would look at an evidence base to see whether the policy was working. If the Finance Minister came to the Education Minister and gave him £20 million and asked him how he would like to spend it, the Education Minister might have some ideas, and every member of the Education Committee, perhaps every Member in the Chamber, might have some ideas as well. However, we would want to make sure that the £20 million was spent in the most effective way to have the greatest impact on the children whom we wanted to help and that it brought the best outcomes for those children. The Chamber is being asked whether holiday hunger welfare payments are the best way to spend £21 million. Will they have the greatest impact on the kids whom we want to help? If we are not sure about that, it leaves us with a problem because that is what we call the "opportunity cost". It is spending in one area, which means that you cannot spend in another area. You cannot spend the money on additional educational psychologists or additional occupational therapists who can go into schools. You cannot spend it on the RAISE programme, the extended schools programme or the other things that the Department does that, we all agree, are incredibly worthwhile. When the money is spent somewhere else, it cannot be spent in the original area, and that, in essence, is my question today.

If the Second Stage is agreed and the Bill goes through to Committee Stage, it will be scrutinised.

However, notwithstanding the fact that, for over 10 years, I worked in the area of addressing educational underachievement and trying to find the best ways to support our kids so that they can thrive and succeed in Northern Ireland — issues for which I have a passion — my question is this: if we got £20 million, is this how we would spend it? Is this the answer? The Bill sponsor is nodding. I am not convinced. I do not think that it is not a noble thing to do or that it is not a good thing to do. Members opposite have already highlighted that this came in as an Executive —.

Mr Carroll: I appreciate the Member giving way. I also appreciate that he mentioned other areas where £20 million could be spent. I have listened carefully, but I have not heard an argument for why the holiday hunger payment should not be introduced. Will he expand on his opposition to it and the reasons why he is opposed to it, rather than just saying that the money could be spent on x, y or z?

Mr Martin: I thank the Member. That is a good question. I will do my best. I thought that I had answered it, but I may not have answered it clearly enough. If we had a near-endless supply of money, I do not doubt that this would be an effectual thing — a good thing — to do. Would it have beneficial effects? There is no doubt in my mind that it would. It is a policy that has been introduced previously. However, that is not the question that I am asking today. The question that a legislative body has to ask around these areas is whether this is the absolute best way to spend the quantum of money that we are talking about. Will it deliver the best outcomes for the people whom that quantum of money is designed to help? Given the way in which the Bill is configured at Second Stage, we are saying that the Minister will have to find £21 million in the Education budget. The question that each individual should be asking themselves is, "Where would we find that money?". What would we not do, which we were doing beforehand — that is what an opportunity cost is — to enable the payments to be made? That is my concern. The extended schools programme is an amazing thing. Some of the additional support that we are seeing with changes around special educational needs — we are talking about resource spend —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Peter, you are straying. I remind you and others about that. I know that the point is about affordability, but it does not give you the leverage to talk about whatever you want. I ask you to conclude your remarks.

Mr Martin: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I apologise if I have strayed — I am pretty sure that I have. I hope that I have answered the Member for West Belfast's question. I have done my best to do so.

I will conclude there. I know that the Member who has brought forward the Bill is heartfelt about its benefits — there is no doubt about that. However, it is not about whether this is a good thing to do or how good or amazing it is. The question that I have, which the Assembly and every Member should have — it is a simple question, because we know the quantum of the cost — is this: is this the best thing that we can do? Will it bring the most effectual change for the children whom we are willing to help? If there is something else that we could use that money for, we should do that. It is as simple as that. I thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, for the indulgence that you have shown to me.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Peter.

Mr Gildernew: I start by congratulating my colleague Danny Baker on bringing forward the Bill, which has the potential to transform so many lives for the better.

Child poverty is a real issue, and it is one that we have debated many times in the Chamber. However, for all those debates, we have not been able to get to grips with the problem. The most up-to-date poverty and income inequality report puts relative child poverty at 23%, or almost one in four. If that statistic does not act as a wake-up call for each and every one of us, I am not sure what will. In practical terms, that means that one in every four children in our society is not being given a fair and equal chance to grow, develop and thrive.

As my colleagues outlined, children who grow up in poverty are more likely to underachieve in school and go on to have worse outcomes as adults when it comes to employment, health and a whole host of other areas. The cost-of-living crisis in recent years has had a devastating impact, especially on lower-income families, and we have seen a sharp rise in the number of parents with young children who are relying on food banks. The illegal US/Israeli war in Iran has caused energy prices to skyrocket, and working families are paying the price once again, with families having to choose between heating and eating and children bearing the brunt of the pain. According to experts, the cost of dealing with poverty lies somewhere between £825 million and £1 billion every year. That is the cost of inactivity. We need to urgently shift towards preventing poverty, which is exactly what the Bill is about, rather than simply mitigating the impacts. We all know that we are in a very challenging financial situation, but we need to view the Bill as a measure that will lead to significant savings in the long term.

Holiday hunger payments for free school meal-entitled children were in place from July 2020 until March 2023 and provided families with a payment of £27 per child every fortnight during school holiday periods. That small but significant payment was a lifeline for so many families who struggle with the extra costs associated with school holiday periods. The decision to remove those payments in March 2023 was the wrong decision, because it served only to push vulnerable families and parents into even deeper poverty and hardship. This Member's Bill will seek to remedy that by reinstating the payment and delivering immediate support to hard-pressed parents and their children at a time when it is most needed.

As the Bill sponsor has acknowledged, the Bill is not a silver bullet, and other effective anti-poverty measures absolutely need to be taken.

Mr Sheehan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gildernew: I will. Go ahead.

Mr Sheehan: The question has been asked here today about whether this would be the best use of £20 million or £21 million — whatever it is. We have to balance whether it would be better spent on the curriculum or on reform. My answer to that is this: what is more important than spending money on children who are malnourished or hungry? We almost have a moral obligation to do that, rather than trying to pit it against other possible spend issues in the Department. Does the Member agree with me on that?

Mr Gildernew: Yes, I absolutely agree. The sector and all the experts in this area will tell us that direct payments to families have the greatest impact. In light of that, I welcome the recent decision by the British Government to scrap the two-child limit, which will also contribute to a reduction in child poverty levels. However, we need to see a significantly strengthened anti-poverty strategy being brought forward with urgency. It must include measurable outcomes and targets and have a much greater focus on preventing poverty. Dealing with poverty, particularly child poverty, is, of course, a cross-departmental and cross-government task, and that should spur Departments to ask, "What can we do?" rather than finding a reason not to do something. That is the spirit in which this is, I think, very relevant for the Education Department.

I once again thank Danny for all the hard work that he has done to bring the Bill this far. I know that there is a lot of work involved in that.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for giving way. Will he accept that, with the way that the Bill is currently configured, the only question is this: what should the Education Minister not do — something that currently costs £21 million — in order to facilitate what is proposed?

Mr Gildernew: The Bill sponsor has made it clear that he has very narrow criteria for making a difference. It is for the Minister to make decisions on how that money is allocated. However, the Bill will have a direct and practical effect by lifting families out of very serious poverty, and, in that sense, I think that it is a great piece of work. I encourage all parties to give the Bill a fair hearing and to work with Danny, as he has offered, and Sinn Féin to ensure that we can get the Bill over the line in the current mandate.

There are thousands of children out there in our communities who deserve a fair chance in life. We all have a duty to do our best by those children, and that is why we need the Bill.

Mr McGrath: I will speak for only a moment or two, or perhaps for even less time than some of the interventions took. In some instances, that would give me the latitude to speak for around 10 minutes. It is said that every day is a school day. I have to say that one line from the debate is burned into my mind, and it is that it is really important that we feed kids. That is so obvious. It speaks volumes that that has had to be said in a debate. We have got ourselves to the point at which we are discussing whether we should feed children. We should take some time to reflect on that.

Mr Sheehan made the point earlier, and it was well made, that we cannot identify children as being hungry during term time but not during the rest of the year. I speak from experience from my years as a youth worker, because I tended to work with young people outside of school time. I worked with them in the evenings, at weekends and at holiday time. One thing that they always said that they loved when I took them away for a period, especially on residentials and exchanges, was that they were so well fed. I certainly always retained that as a really important part of the programme, not least because if they were fed, the kids went to bed and slept that night. If they were not, they were on edge, unhappy and unsettled. I therefore know the importance of feeding young people well so that they were satisfied and nourished.

Mr Carroll: I appreciate the Member's giving way. As a former youth worker myself, I can testify to that. Does he acknowledge and agree with me that, at a recent meeting about Unison's free school meals for all campaign, at which Members in the Chamber were present, teachers and classroom assistants mentioned that, during term time, many pupils do not get any meals at home over the weekend and that, when they come into school, they get the first meal that they will have had in 48 hours or so? Does the Member agree that that is a reality in schools?

Mr McGrath: Absolutely. I have experienced children and young people being very hungry at the weekend and at holiday time. I commend the work that Children in NI has done through its Gets Active programme. I know that it has met the Bill sponsor. It has brought groups of young people together to examine the issue. Sometimes, young people can inform us a lot better about issues that relate to them. Rather than all of us sitting in here thinking that we know better, we should ask young people to tell us their thoughts and views and about their experiences. Those young people were bang on the money. They knew exactly what the issues were. They understood their importance. They recognised what happened to their peers when they were not being fed and were coming into school hungry, and they recognised when that was happening, which was at weekends and at holiday time.

The youth centre that I am associated with, the Patrician Youth Centre in Downpatrick, has a group that contributes to that programme. I was lucky to be able to join the group and hear about some of its work with experts from other places whom it has met on Zoom meetings and from whom it gets some guidance and support. I know that, because there is that recognised need, many businesses and companies out there support youth organisations and give them money to provide food inside centres.

We do not need to discuss whether the issue is important. Rather, we can take it as read that it is and that there are young people in our community who are not getting fed at the weekend or during the holidays. The Bill would go some way to addressing that. I will make one plea that I hope is not taken from an Opposition perspective: let us not politicise the issue. This is about feeding hungry children. Let us not start saying, "No, you've got to pay for it", "No, you've got to give us money" and, "No, you've got to decide whether it is enough". Let us instead thrash out some of the details in Committee and not let the public display of the debate be about scoring points against other parties. The Bill is about feeding children and recognising that if we feed them, we know how much better their lives and opportunities will be.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr McGrath: Yes.

Mr Brooks: The principle of asking which Department pays for what and responsibility being in the right place matters. From our point of view, it is not about pushing that around with other parties. It sits partly with Westminster and partly with the Department for Communities, which is led by our Minister. The principle is that we need to make sure that the right Department looks after that responsibility, particularly when we are dealing with cases such as the Department of Education and probably the Department of Health as well, where there are such huge responsibilities and where — as you will know, from the Committee on which you sit — the budget does not meet the need.

Mr McGrath: I welcome what the Member said. I understand it. I am not saying that I disagree. I know that the Minister, who is sitting in front of him, has a finite budget and that, if he is asked for extra money to come out of it, he will have to go off and assess that budget to work out where it will come from. I get that, but let us not turn it into a fight in this place about how that is done. There could be extra money from the whole Executive that goes to the Department. It could be suggested that every Department chips in a little bit. One thing is certain: if the Bill goes through, the young people who will be fed and nourished and who will be able to develop will not give a damn where the money came from. They will just be interested in the fact that there is food in their mouths.

In 2026, the fact that we have to distil the conversation down to whether we should or should not feed hungry children makes me think, "Are we in a Dickensian society?". It is like being back in the 1700s or 1800s. I hope that we can lift the game above that and find a solution. If the problem is identified as the money, let us find a solution to that, because if we do, we end up feeding hungry children, and then we have a success.

I wish the Bill sponsor well with the Bill. I hope that it proceeds. I think that it would be really interesting to be on the Education Committee to be part of it; unfortunately, I am not. I wish the Bill well, and I am sure that it will pass Second Stage this evening and progress to being analysed and, hopefully, passed.

Mr Gaston: Everyone in the Chamber wants to do all that they can to ensure that no child goes hungry, but we must get issues like this right from the beginning. As legislators, we must ask the hard questions, not duck them. That includes asking what exactly is going on in the Executive with their spending priorities. At the end of the previous mandate, the Assembly rushed through a number of pieces of legislation that, as the Speaker has rightly pointed out and as others have acknowledged, were not properly thought through.

To put that into context, there was the Hospital Parking Charges Act, which has already been mentioned a number of times in the Assembly. Who would object to free car parking for those who are attending appointments and visiting those who find themselves ill? However, on closer inspection, the legislation was found to have financial ramifications that were not properly thought through. I believe that this Bill is in a similar position and, once again, could create that danger and a major problem in years to come.

The Bill takes a discretionary scheme that was introduced during an extraordinary time — the COVID pandemic — and says that the state should fund meals during school holidays. There is nothing to suggest how that should be paid for. However, the interesting point comes when one contrasts the Bill and the situation in Northern Ireland with that in the rest of the United Kingdom. England has the holiday activities and food programme (HAF). Before the debate, I read the government briefing on what that scheme does. It says:

In my view — no disrespect to the Bill sponsor — that scheme is superior to the one in front of us today. I will set out why that is. Among other things, it ensures that children and parents are involved in the preparation of food, and they get support that is appropriate to their circumstances. None of that is addressed in the Bill before us today, which merely proposes, in clause 1:

It is a wide-reaching Bill. There are no guard rails for how the money is to be spent. It would go to parents whose children are in receipt of free school meals, but who is to say how that would be spent? There is to be no training in food preparation and no life skills gained through a scheme akin to that in England, just more free money for parents —

Mr Baker: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: — forever enshrined in law. I am happy to give way.

Mr Baker: While you are going through that, I have a wee quote from you. You had a dig at the Minister the last time that this was debated:

Mr Gaston: That brings me to my point. The money from that pilot has been sent to the Executive. I am trying to point out to you that I believe that would be a better scheme to roll out to Northern Ireland. Mr Martin talked about the £20 million and how we get the best return for that. This, to me, is the solution. That scheme has gone through the pilot, albeit we have not got the figures for how it has worked in England, but, to me, that could be the blueprint for what we do here in Northern Ireland. It is not a dig at the Minister. I am not saying that I am against giving out money to help children to ensure that they do not go hungry during holidays. I am saying that that is a better route to go down and a better scheme. Here is the big question: the money from the scheme that was rolled out in England came here to the Executive, but what did we do with it? Where is the Northern Ireland version of that scheme?

I am talking about the priorities that we have in the Executive. If we had been following what England was doing, we would already have a similar scheme rolled out here in Northern Ireland. To be fair to the Bill sponsor, we would not require this Member's Bill to enact what has taken place through the pilot in England. Therefore, let us look at the Executive. Let us look at the Finance Minister. When that money came across, where was it divvied up and sent to? What was that money spent on? That would be a better version and a more productive outcome. Like you, Mr Baker, I am a Back-Bencher. I do not have intel on what the Executive have done with that money. I cannot account for it, but it is a question that the Executive can answer. How much money came to the Northern Ireland Executive because of that pilot? What was that money spent on? When that money came to the Executive, what was more important than feeding kids? That is what we have heard here today. Money was allocated from that scheme. It came to the Executive, and somebody prioritised that it was spent on something else instead of having a Northern Ireland version of the scheme that you referred to.

I am happy to give way.

Mr Baker: Where is the Member's private Member's Bill to address this?

Mr Gaston: When I came into this place, the window had already closed, but you are detracting from the point that I am trying to make. I admire what you are trying to do with the Bill. All I am trying to point out to you is that there is a pilot scheme in England. You have lifted what was rolled out during the extraordinary time of COVID, and it is quite admirable that you have brought that to the House, but what I am saying to you is that a pilot has been rolled out in England, and I believe that that would be a better value-for-money alternative here in Northern Ireland. That is what Mr Martin asked. I believe that the £20 million would be better spent on a parallel Northern Ireland scheme.

Mr Sheehan talked about spending priorities and the curriculum — reform, I think, was the term that he used. No, no, no; where did the money go that was allocated to Northern Ireland through the Barnett consequential for that scheme? Why has Sinn Féin not already delivered that in the Executive? The Bill that you are proposing is to tackle a problem that we already have money for. Do you agree? Money was sent here from Westminster for a similar scheme, but we have chosen to channel it into other things. That is a question that every party around the Executive table has to answer. How much did we get based on the pilot scheme in England, and what did we choose to spend that money on? I urge the Member to look at that scheme and try to replicate it, if possible, if the Bill is passed today and moves to the next stage.

That is a very important issue for me if I am to support the Bill going forward. I need to have assurance as to where the money is coming from and what other areas in Education are going to be cut. I used my Member's statement this morning to call on the Education Minister to look again at applications for pupil allocation numbers for non-statutory playgroup provision in North Antrim and, indeed across Northern Ireland, so it would be hypocritical of me to come here today and say, "Yes, we need to do this" while I am challenging the Minister to put more money into people allocation numbers for non-statutory settings.

That is where I rest my case today, and I hope that, in the Member's winding-up speech, he will give us some information from his party colleague the Finance Minister, if he would like to join us, to confirm to the House how much we got from the HAF scheme in England, where that money went and why it was prioritised to other Executive target areas and not to what you are championing here today. I agree that we have to do something about holiday hunger and child poverty, but what is the best outcome? Is it your Member's Bill or is it to recreate what they have in England? I look forward to the Education Minister's summing up when, hopefully, he can give us some more detail on that.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for bringing this important legislation to the House today. There is a lack of legislation, but this is obviously quite important. I met the Member about the Bill and I am happy to support it going forward. As he noted, the reintroduction of the payments is something that should have been implemented by the Education Minister, but he refused to act, hence the Member's Bill. As in many other areas, including housing, environmental protection and equality, Members' Bills are being developed because Executive Ministers are refusing to act. I will, hopefully, be bringing forward a housing Bill, because the Communities Minister has refused to act to address the ever-rising cost of rents and the housing crisis.

As has been said, holiday hunger payments are a cash-first approach, which gives struggling families some dignity and control over their finances during the school holidays. To be honest, it was a rare positive measure introduced by the Executive at the start of the pandemic, which I and most others in the House supported. As has been mentioned, over 100,000 children benefited from those payments. Inexplicably, however, in March 2023, the Department failed to allocate enough funding to continue the scheme. In the middle of a post-COVID economic crisis — if we have ever got out of that — the price of food soared and continues to soar because of the war in Iran and other issues. That was a disastrous decision, which directly harmed children who were eligible for free school meals. As was mentioned in passing at the start of the debate, that also put unsustainable pressure on the community and voluntary sector.

To add insult to injury, the EA increased the price of school meals by 50p. That may not sound a lot, but when you are talking about a family with two or three children, that adds up to hundreds of pounds a year, which is unaffordable for so many who have seen real-term wage cuts. The Trussell Trust food banks in the North distributed over 38,000 emergency food parcels to children in 2023-24. That organisation has stated that that represents a 150% increase from five years ago, and managers of food banks have identified that the main reason for that was the removal of the holiday hunger payment scheme. Too many families dread the holidays, thinking about how they will cover the cost of extra meals every single day.

Hopefully — I say "hopefully", but I have listened to the debate intently — we all agree that working-class children should not be expected to go hungry over the school holidays. As I said, however, the contributions of some Members to my right make me question whether everybody agrees on that point.

David Brooks, the Member for East Belfast, said at the start of the debate that the payment should not be seen as a top-up welfare payment. I take that to be a derogatory framing of the payment. It is pretty insulting to the hundreds of thousands of families who rely on social security. Welfare payments absolutely —.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: I will finish the point and then give way.

Welfare payments should be topped up and increased so that they are enough to live on. This payment should not be seen as a luxury; it is a necessity for people to survive on.

Mr Brooks: I thank the Member for giving way. He said that he listened intently to the debate. If he had listened intently to my contribution, he would understand that it was about one of the principles that I have argued for a number of times. It was not a derogatory slur on those who receive welfare but simply about the principle that what is being talked about here is, in essence, a welfare intervention rather than an educational intervention. I have debated that principle across the Chamber today. At no time was it a slur on those who are on welfare, many of whom are my constituents whom I help daily, as, I am sure, all Members around the Chamber do for their constituents.

Mr Carroll: I listened upstairs to the debate. If that is not how the remark was intended, I will retract, but it certainly sounded derogatory from my standpoint.

Mr Brooks also stated that the Assembly is not a factory for nice ideas. What is it? What is the Assembly meant to do? It is clearly not legislating. Apart from today, there is a lack of legislation coming through. I did not really understand the Member's contributions, but I think that they were an attempt to muddy the water and throw out dead cats to deflect from his party's seeming to oppose this measured but important Bill.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: Yes, I will give way.

Mr Brooks: The point that I made was that we have a responsibility to look at the budgetary constraints and other issues. There are many things that would be nice, good or right to do, but that does not necessarily mean that the way in which we look to do them is the right way or that they are the priority that we need to take forward. I agree, as, I think, everyone here agrees, that poverty needs to be tackled. There has been a discussion in the Chamber today about how we can do that optimally. My point about the Assembly's not being just a nice ideas factory is, in essence, that we have to have some context and link that to our understanding of the financial constraints that the Executive and the budgets are under.

Mr Carroll: Thank you for that, but I am none the wiser, to be honest. This is legislation. The parties to my right always decry people talking about Palestine, Venezuela or motions, but this is about legislation, and Members should vote on it.

Mr Sheehan: I thank the Member for giving way. There has been some effort here today to create a disconnect between children's education and their being off school at Easter and Christmas and during the summer. I have two kids who are still at school. They come home at holiday time with packs to work through during the holidays. They also take part in various sports events and music events. How are kids supposed to do sport during the summer holidays if they are not getting fed? Those things are connected. How, if they are hungry, are they supposed to do the work that they are sent home with to do over the holidays? It is so eminently sensible to me that I do not know why others cannot grasp the fact that, if a kid is hungry, they will not learn. It is as simple as that.

Mr Carroll: Thank you for that. I have two young kids. One is at nursery. I had made notes on what to say later, but it makes sense to come to them now. Education and learning does not happen just in schools or just in term time. My son was sent tasks or homework — call it what you want — to do at home at Easter time. Many kids in our constituency have to do that on hungry bellies. That work involves thinking and using your brain; it is a form of education and development, but there are no payments to support families and children to do that. I will extend that to ask this: what if there are no school books or homeworks being used in the summer time, for example? Are children still learning and still developing if they are reading non-curriculum books, watching television programmes or even just playing and mucking about? I will add that to your comment.

The Assembly is rightly criticised for not legislating. I support the legislation. I would like it to do more, but Members should vote for it. We need to stop punishing working-class children and reinstate the holiday hunger payment in time for the summer holidays. I know that the Member will make the point about the Bill's limited scope, but I say this to him directly: we should be more ambitious and look at the universal provision of free school meals all year round.

I share the concern raised by the Member for Lagan Valley. I will strongly paraphrase her comments, so she may want to intervene. Basically, whose business is it if a parent or family spends money from the scheme on an extra treat or an extra trip at holiday times? What that money is spent on is not the business of anybody in the House. Are we really to develop a scheme — I do not want to give anybody ideas — that forces parents to bring receipts to the EA or whomever the payments will be issued by, with CCTV being monitored to see who is buying chocolate rather than other items? That is absurd stuff. I agree with her sentiment, although she did not frame it in the way in which I did.

Unsurprisingly, there has been a lot of focus on affordability. The original holiday payment scheme showed that the normal economically stringent and fiscally conservative rules could be broken when there was a health crisis and when the will was there to break them. They should be broken when it comes to meeting people's needs. They should not be in place to satisfy the British Government or the Treasury. If the will is there, the money will be found. The will is there in some parts of the House but not in others. I have a long list of ideas, if anybody wants to listen, about where that money could be found locally.

When I first became involved in political campaigning — a long time ago now — it was around the issue of making poverty history globally and locally. Unfortunately, more than 20 years on, we are further away from that. It is disgraceful that we have one in three children in my constituency living in poverty. We need to address that issue. The holiday hunger payment scheme will not address poverty, but it will be a step in the right direction. I urge Members to support the Bill on that basis.

My final point is about benefits and welfare support. Members have made valid points about that. People who are on universal credit should not be financially penalised for receiving a small but important payment. If we are saying that a small but important sum of money could lead to people being penalised, kicked off benefits or whatever the situation may be, that really shines a light on how broken our welfare system is across the board. However, that is a wider debate that I will not be allowed to get into. The Principal Deputy Speaker may not have heard me, but she will not let me go there.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Gerry. I was listening.

The business in the Order Paper is not expected to be dispensed with by 6.00 pm. Going by the length of this debate, it may not be dispensed with even by 7.00 pm. However, in accordance with Standing Order 10(3), I will allow the business to continue until 7.00 pm. We may need a motion from the Business Committee after that. This is legislation, and that is how it rolls here. We all complain that legislation is not happening, but it is here now, so do not give off.

Claire, you are next.

Ms Sugden: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. I support the Bill's Second Stage, because, for me, particularly at this stage, which is the principles stage, it comes down to something basic. Earlier today, we were talking about rising energy prices and the pressure that that puts on households. The reality is that that pressure has not come out of nowhere, and it is not necessarily new; it has been building for years. What we see now is a slow burn in the cost of living. Added to that are significant global events that, realistically, we, as an Assembly, cannot control but that are certainly making things difficult for families across Northern Ireland. All households are feeling it.

Some families feel it sooner and feel it harder, and that is because they simply do not have the same room to absorb the pressure.

Pat Sheehan, I think, talked about middle-income families who may not necessarily be eligible for what is being proposed. That demonstrates the squeeze that people across Northern Ireland face. For low-income families, that pressure is more acute, which is why, when we have such opportunities, we should take them. Bear in mind that we have such opportunities only when the system is already not working. When the Government are not already implementing such policies, we have to legislate for them. That is sad. Something as fundamental as this issue should not require legislation to compel the Government to do something about providing a basic right, which is food.

When we talk about the context of the rising cost of living, it means cutting back. For others, that means not simply cutting out luxuries but making real choices about whether to have three meals a day, two meals a day or even one meal a day. That children are part of that is genuinely heartbreaking. Frankly, it is a failure in a region of a Western democracy that we are talking about having starving children here.

One of the few certainties that children have is that, when they are in school, they will at least get one proper meal a day. That is something on which we can rely. Is it not sad that that is what we are relying on? When schools close during the holidays, however, that certainty disappears. We should never be in a position in which a child's most reliable meal depends on the school calendar. I really struggle with the idea that we recognise need during term time but step back during the school holidays, when, in many cases, the pressure on families is greater, given the additional costs that come with having kids at home.

Members have asked whether it is within the Education Minister's remit to provide if children are not in school. That is a case of "Not my remit, not my problem". I remind everybody in the Assembly that there is one Government. You all sit around an Executive table, hopefully weekly but maybe biweekly. You talk about the issues. If there is an issue with this being under one siloed Department, work together. I remember being in a Government in which we had outcomes-based accountability. Departments agreed to share, with one Department taking the lead. If that is the only objection to the problem, maybe that is how we make progress on the issue.

I appreciate that, ultimately, it comes down to the bottom line. Departments will say, "That's a very nice idea, but, if I'm not compelled to do it, I won't, because I can't afford to do it. We do not have the money in our budget", but it is fundamental and basic. It is not just a Department of Education problem but a Northern Ireland Executive problem. It is also a UK Government problem. They must recognise that they need to give more money back to Northern Ireland so that we can share it out among families here. The numbers are great. Someone said that 90,000 children are entitled to free school meals. Please correct me if I am wrong. That is a significant number of children. It is not a couple of thousand children but 90,000.

It is also not about creating something new but about responding to something that we have already seen, so it is possible. There is context for it. I appreciate that it is a different context of more challenging budgets and a more expensive environment, but does that not give us more of an impetus to try to support the people whom we are here to represent?

The Bill is about food. It is about children not feeling hungry. Imagine feeling hunger as a child. We should aim higher, however. It should be not just about ensuring that children get one meal a day but about ensuring that children are being properly fed throughout the day and are being brought out of poverty. I appreciate that we need an anti-poverty strategy across the board, but I am not seeing that. I am not seeing any other action by this Government or any other. I have listened to contributions in which it was said, "If we had £20 million, we would do this with it". The reality is that you are doing nothing anyway. If there is action through the Bill, at least we are responding by raising an issue that affects a lot of families across Northern Ireland.

People listening to the debate probably assume that children are not going without, but the reality is that they are. In Northern Ireland, there are children living in poverty. In Northern Ireland, there are children who are going to school and getting their one meal a day. That is all that they are getting. That should really concern all of us.

I appreciate that there is a cost, but, as others have said, at some point, we have to decide what to prioritise. I also appreciate that it would be an ongoing cost. If we pass the legislation, the Department of Education will be compelled to meet the cost every year. We then have to look at what other Departments spend money on, because it is not just about the Department of Education. Members of the Northern Ireland Executive need to sit around a table and prioritise a Budget together. Yes, they will bring their own remit into those conversations, but, at the end of the day, it should be about outcomes. It should be about the people of Northern Ireland, who do not fit neatly into Education, Health or Communities.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for giving way. Leaving aside the very valid moral argument for the payment, does she agree that, if we do not invest in the likes of free school meals, we could see the financial costs at the end of the system? Other Members mentioned the justice system and people being forced to drop out of education. Does she agree, therefore, that there is a financial impact at the end of the child's school life, if you will?

Ms Sugden: Absolutely. It gives me no pleasure to say that, in Northern Ireland, we are not strategic, and we are not looking at joined-up approaches to achieve our outcomes. We do not recognise that there is an upstream problem with all this. It is sad that we need legislation to deal with that symptom of the problems that exist right throughout society, but that symptom in itself will lead to further symptoms, including in the justice system, and outcomes relating to educational attainment and achievement. All of it is relevant and should be taken in the round, and that is why it is so frustrating to me, having been a Member of the House for 12 years, that we are still having conversations about how Departments are not working together. We are still having conversations in silos. I am not surprised that Ministers are not really talking to one another, but is that not desperately sad? When they accepted the oath when they became Ministers, they agreed to work together in one Government. If there is one message that I can get out to the general public of Northern Ireland, it is this: do not be gaslit by Ministers into thinking that they are not all working together. Maybe they are not, but they are one Government, and they agreed to that. That is the responsibility that they agreed to when they took on those roles.

The Bill needs work. It needs to be discussed, explored and tested. I appreciate that it is a Member's Bill, but, again, if the Government are not doing it, there is an opportunity for Back-Benchers to put forward their own legislation. We are legislators. That is what we exist for. I would like to see many more Members' Bills. I have my own Bill coming through, and I am frustrated that it is not moving as quickly as I would like. That is what this job exists for. If the Bill is not right, the Minister can take it on himself, and that would be a huge success. He can potentially look at other ways of doing this. Let us not just say that we cannot agree with it and then scrap it. Let us look at the problem and start fixing it. That may require legislation or it may not.

This stage is about the principles of the Bill, and, for me, that is about whether we want children and families struggling in hunger throughout the summer months, throughout Easter and throughout Christmas simply because they are not at school. Would it not be a wonderful thing if our Education Minister were to say that they were his responsibility all 365 days of the year, not just during term time, because he recognises that, when they are not getting fed through the summer, that has an impact on their education?

Other Members have talked about after-school clubs and extracurricular activities. That is education. We only have to look at how that develops children individually. Education is not just numeracy and literacy; it is development, life skills and all those things. We are limiting that, not just in the summer months but when they go back to school. Think how much more developed they would be if we actually supported them during their time off.

We are too slow in addressing the root causes of why children are going hungry. It is not just the school holidays but throughout the year. As I said, the Executive firefight. Too often, we are dealing with the symptoms, and, in many ways, the Bill, sadly, is dealing with a symptom. That should not be the case, and it should never have been the case. We would once have taken it for granted that we are feeding our children, but we are not. Given the pressure on public services and the reality that nothing feels protected any more, I recognise that we are under really difficult budgetary pressure. The sad thing is that the things that we always thought would be there — the fundamental services that we, as legislators, assumed would be taken care of — are not there because people are making really difficult choices on the bottom line. The only way to protect fundamental services is to legislate for them.

I will support the Bill at this stage. There is a lot of work to be done, and I commend the Member for bringing it to the attention of the House. It is sad that we have to legislate on this, but I think that our job here, ultimately, is to serve the people of Northern Ireland. In this area, we are not serving them.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Claire. Members, we resumed the debate at around 3.30 pm. It has been a substantial debate and a great debate, but we still need to hear from the Minister and, indeed, the Bill sponsor. You can all nip out to the loo, but I cannot, so I propose a 10-minute break. We should return at 6.00 pm. Is that fair enough? Thank you.

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

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Assembly may sit until 8.30 pm this evening, if necessary.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call the Minister of Education to respond to the debate.

Mr Givan: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the Second Stage debate on the Bill and perhaps introduce some reality and context. While Mr Baker and I have not seen eye to eye on every issue in the Chamber, I do not for one moment question his sincerity in introducing this private Member's Bill. I have been a Member of the Assembly for 16 years. I have watched many come and go. The overwhelming majority never introduce a private Member's Bill, seek to change the law or even bring forward an amendment to legislation. They often just table and speak to non-binding motions, knowing that there is no reality to them. Mr Baker is not one of them, because he has brought a private Member's Bill. That is not an easy thing to do, given the work that is involved in taking forward a Bill. He has engaged; he has consulted; he has researched. As he goes through the process — I have no doubt that the Bill will move to the next stage — he will have a huge amount of work to do. It is not an easy thing for any MLA to do.

I disagree on the substance as to, "Is this the most effective way to do it?", and I will go through that. As Minister, I know that, when you try to bring forward legislation, people will be critical of it. At times, I maybe take that criticism too personally. Mr Baker will feel the same when his Bill is being criticised. You sometimes get into the habit of being defensive about what you are doing. It feels as though it is a personal attack, and you respond in kind. There is a skill set that he will develop. I am still trying to develop it some 16 years later. I have not mastered it, and it is something that he will need to work on. I therefore hope that he does not take what I will say in my substantive response as a personal criticism, because it is not. I understand the sincerity with which he has brought forward the Bill.

I suspect that all Members of the House agree that no child in Northern Ireland should go hungry during term time or the school holidays — not at any time of the year. However, we are debating not a motion but legislation, which requires detailed scrutiny. The Bill, as a one-off measure that is taken free from the knock-on implications, is not an answer to that challenge. A private Member's Bill is not how such an issue should be addressed. If it is the desire of the Executive to address the issue — Mr Burrows made this point — why is there not an Executive scheme being delivered by the Executive? If it was the desire of the Executive to address the issue, it would be a core aspect of the Programme for Government. You would then make provision for it in the Budget, and you would legislate for it in a way that reflects that it is a societal welfare measure and not one for the Department of Education. It was not one of the priorities contained in the Programme for Government. Special educational needs and childcare are priorities, as is addressing hospital waiting lists, and budget allocations are flowing as a result. The Programme for Government was agreed by the Executive, which is led by Sinn Féin's First Minister, with the DUP in it. If, as Mr Sheehan says, this is the single most important issue, why did Sinn Féin not make it a Programme for Government priority? I was not involved in a single discussion around the Executive table about holiday hunger being a Programme for Government requirement to which funding should be allocated. If the issue was to be addressed comprehensively and coherently across all Departments, that is how it would have been taken forward. That is why a private Member's Bill, as well intentioned as it is, is not the best way to address the issue.

Despite the Bill's worthy aspirations, there are many reasons to oppose its passage through the Assembly. I will begin with a fundamental issue: the cost of the Bill, which will place an additional burden on my Department's already deficient budget, and the consequential negative impact that such a burden would have on the education of our children. As I have said in the Chamber on many occasions, my Department faces an acute budget shortfall. The Finance Minister's draft three-year Budget would create a shortfall of around £600 million in 2026-27, and that increases to over £1 billion in 2028-29. The Sinn Féin Member for South Down said that Sinn Féin was "stepping up", but Sinn Féin is starving me of the funding that I need for Education. We cannot, on the one hand, come in here, grandstand, get the social media clip and roll it out with the line that Sinn Féin has stepped up when, in reality, it is starving my Department of funding in the Executive's budgetary allocation.

The level of cuts required is simply not achievable without doing profound damage to the education provision that children and young people rely on each day. We have already had to make very difficult decisions in my Department's draft five-year budget strategy, which includes even more unpalatable cuts in expenditure. The Sinn Féin Member for South Down says that the DUP is holding back a multi-year Budget, but she does not say that the multi-year Budget creates a deficit of over £1 billion in Education. Are people saying that we should vote for that? Are people saying that the Executive should pass a Budget that would create a £1 billion deficit in Education? What would the devastation look like? It is not good enough for Sinn Féin to come in here and say that it is stepping up when the reality of its approach in the Executive is very different.

Against that backdrop, the Bill would impose a new and recurring statutory duty on my Department and the Education Authority to make holiday meal payments without there being any funding mechanism. The Bill would have an estimated cost of £20·8 million in this financial year. That is not a one-off cost; it is a recurring annual cost that would rise further. My officials have estimated that it would cost £31·5 million a year by 2033-34. Without additional ring-fenced funding —.

Mr Baker: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Givan: I will give way to Mr Baker.

Mr Baker: Minister, will you please give me some indication of how you came to that figure? There is a difference of £10 million between it and my figure, and I can explain how my figures line up.

Mr Givan: Of course the Member raises that question. I do not want to get into a situation in which it is said to me, "The Assembly's researchers have all said that that is what it would cost, and you are now casting aspersions on their professional judgement". I am saying to you that that is what my officials have said, and I will not go through that. However, I will give you the basis on which we reached our conclusion on the costs associated with the Bill, and I will tell you how that process was informed. I will address that point, and I am happy to be questioned on the substance of that. Unless additional ring-fenced funding is provided to the Executive, the costs will have to be met entirely from my Department's existing budget. That is why I asked Members this question: will you put your hands up for an amendment that takes funding from other Departments to pay for the Bill's provisions?

Will you walk through the Yes Lobby to support an amendment that states that this is ring-fenced, and thus protected, funding before funding is allocated to any other Department? That could be the Department of Justice, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs or the Department for Infrastructure. Will we be saying, as an Assembly, that this is the most important priority, after which we will allocate funding to the rest of the Departments? We did not get an answer when that question was posed. Members cannot simply keep passing legislation and then say, "It's up to the Department of Education to figure out how it's going to fund this". That is not credible. The public do not buy that. They expect our propositions to be realistic.

To be clear, if Members vote for the Bill, they are potentially removing £21 million from core education provision in this current year. To put that in context, that is over half the present Youth Service budget, and that £21 million will rise to almost £32 million by 2033-34, resulting in real and damaging cuts being made to priorities that will harm our the education of our children. That is not a treat. Rather, it is a harm that will be caused. I do not understand how any Member could consider that to be a good outcome. I say directly to those Members who do that it would then be difficult for them to stand up in the Chamber and object to any cuts that would inevitably result. Make no mistake that, by voting for the Bill, in the absence of additional funding for the Department of Education budget, Members are in essence voting to cut education spending.

We have been here before — I referenced it — with hospital parking charges. I was in the Assembly and voted for the Bill that Sinn Féin brought through the House just before the election. I put my hand up for it, but I wish that I had not. It was a mistake that I did. That is why we deferred commencing that legislation once and will do so a second time. The Health Minister rightly came forward and said, "Here are the cuts that will be made in my Department if we implement it".

Mr Sheehan: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Givan: The decision has been taken. All parties on the Executive supported the legislation to defer the commencement of the 2022 Act, the costs from which do not come close to the financial implications of this Bill. Sorry, Mr Sheehan. I will give way.

Mr Sheehan: Does the Minister accept that there is a qualitative difference between providing free car parking at hospitals and feeding children who are not getting food to sustain them?

Mr Givan: I can address the point about making sure that funding for any scheme to tackle poverty goes towards food, but we are discussing the principle. We are talking about passing a private Member's Bill that has financial implications. It is not legislation that is free from financial resources needing to be allocated to it. In the same way, the private Member's Bill that we passed in the final months of the previous mandate has not been commenced because of the costs associated with it. In my view, private Members' Bills are not best placed to deal with tens of millions of pounds of public funding. They are not best placed to ensure that funding is discharged in the most effective way. As I said, we have not been able to commence another private Member's Bill that the Assembly passed.

When it comes to funding this Bill, there are real implications for the Department of Education. Members therefore cannot have it both ways. They cannot vote for the Bill and then express any surprise about the resulting cuts to education provision. Alternatively, if we were to maintain the present level of spending on free school meals, we would have to reduce the number of children who would be entitled to benefit from that scheme. If the Bill were to be funded from the centre, Members should be honest enough to identify where cuts would then be made. If they believe that funding the Bill is justified, they should perhaps propose an increase in the regional rate in order to fund it. They should say to the public, "It's the right thing to do, so we're going to put up your rates to pay for it". Members are not saying that, however. I am not saying that we should put up our rates. In fact, we are sending letters to the Treasury and the Prime Minister demanding cuts in order to allow us to address the cost-of-living crisis with which we are dealing. We also want to see more spent on public services. When making propositions, we therefore need to be honest with the public about their implications.

The Bill's explanatory and financial memorandum states that the purpose of the scheme is to "alleviate food poverty". I have said that that is noble, and it is something that we should all support and want to see addressed, as it is a direct financial payment to low-income families to cover food costs when children are on school holidays.

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, the Bill does not inevitably alleviate food poverty any more than it alleviates fuel poverty. It provides a cash payment to parents, not food for children. Parents will, understandably, spend the money on whatever is the greatest priority in the family budget at any given time. I think that it was the Alliance Member for Lagan Valley who indicated that it would potentially help ease the financial burden around childcare costs, heating costs and essentials. The Member is right; I am not disagreeing with the Member. Of course any funding that is provided will be able to offset costs associated with other financial burdens that families are dealing with. Therefore, we need to be clear that this will not inevitably deal with holiday hunger and food provision, because there is no mechanism to ensure that that is how the payment will be utilised. We can hope that it will be utilised for that purpose, but we cannot guarantee it. Therefore, I believe that, de facto, this is a social welfare intervention. We can debate the rights or wrongs associated with that, and many would want to introduce that.

I accept that children being adequately fed during the school holidays will help them when they return to school, but that does not make the payment itself an educational intervention any more than a housing benefit becomes an educational intervention because children learn better when they have a stable and good home. The issues experienced by some low-income families during school holidays are essentially the same issues that they face at any other time: they have insufficient income to meet their needs. That is not a problem that the education system is designed or resourced to address. Education can and does play a vital role in supporting disadvantaged pupils during the school day, but the Education budget is not a welfare fund. The Member for East Londonderry, who spoke just before me, made the connection about how this can be an education issue. The basis upon which she makes that argument is not beyond credibility, but education also has a role in reducing offending in the criminal justice system, so should I take over the Department of Justice? Education has responsibilities that go into so many other departmental areas. Should we emasculate and bring them all into the Department of Education?

Ms Sugden: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Givan: I absolutely have a role in addressing these issues, but to vote in favour of the Bill because there is a connection and say that that means that the responsibility for dealing with it and resourcing it would come out of only the Department of Education's resources is not credible.

I will give way to the Member.

Ms Sugden: Thank you, Minister. I appreciate your making the connection between various parts of government. I am not saying that you should take over a Department. I am simply saying that you should work with your colleagues in government and work towards a shared outcome. If one of you has to take the lead because of the way that our government is designed, maybe that is what we need to do. It is not a flippant response or saying that you need to do everything. It is recognising that we need more joined-up government.

Mr Givan: I say to the Member and to other Members that we have an anti-poverty strategy. Where is the funding for that strategy? Why is there not an amendment or legislation to say, "Fund the anti-poverty strategy"? It has not been given the resources by the Executive. I am part of the Executive, and so are other Members in the Assembly. I know that the Member is not part of the Executive, but there is an anti-poverty strategy. I engaged with the Minister for Communities, and, as part of that engagement, I said to the Minister, "Education has a role in tackling hunger. Is there a way that we could open up schools and canteens outside school term time? Could we utilise our school estate to make sure that we are part of the solution and that we can provide access to those facilities outside school term time? Is there a way for other community organisations to assist? We can fund those community organisations to ensure that any investment —". The question was posed by the Member from my party Mr Martin: if we had £20 million and wanted to make it effective for dealing with hunger, is this the way that we would do it? I would say that it is not, but could you use £20 million a year, if you had it, to open up schools and have canteens available for children to come in and make sure that it is being used for the purposes of feeding them? Could you fund community organisations and council facilities outside term time to make sure that that funding actually fulfils the purpose for which it is intended? I fed in all of that, as Minister, to say that Education is part of the solution. By no means am I trying to absolve myself of any responsibility or trying not to provide answers to this. I have, and I have fed them in officially from my Department to the Department for Communities and provided suggestions on how we can assist in tackling those issues. There are ways in which we are seeking to address the issue across the Departments.

Education can, and does, play a vital role in supporting disadvantaged pupils during the school day. However, as I have said before, the Education budget is not a welfare fund. The fact that the Education system holds the data on free school meals entitlement does not make my Department the right one to provide what is effectively a form of welfare support to those families.

The history of the previous school holiday food hunger grant scheme matters, as it exposes a fundamental misunderstanding at the heart of the Bill. Between 2020 and 2023, the previous Executive agreed to deliver that scheme, and it was established at pace in unique circumstances at the outset of the global pandemic. The Executive wanted a scheme introduced to ensure that children from low-income families had access to food during their school holidays. As the Education Authority had the data and payment infrastructure to get money to families quickly, Education was given the operational role of delivering the scheme on behalf of the Executive. It was not because food poverty outside term time was primarily an Education matter, nor was it because the Executive had made a considered, long-term, strategic decision that DE was the correct home for that policy. My Department — before I was there — led on that scheme on behalf of the Executive simply because the EA could do it at speed, and speed was required in response to a global pandemic. I do not believe that what was effectively an emergency response should then set future precedent, which the Bill would introduce. The Department of Education's leading on the delivery of that scheme was based on additional ring-fenced funding that was provided to my Department so that the funding did not have to be diverted from educational priorities. It is clear that, even in times of a global pandemic, the Executive recognised that those payments were direct financial support to low-income families to cover food costs when children were not in school. That is income support, not education. The Executive acted at that time to protect education. The Bill does not.

Not for the first time with a Member's Bill, I also have real concerns that it has significant technical and legislative shortcomings and that it would require significant amendment to become workable, particularly for the most problematic issues in the basis and design of the core provisions. I have no doubt that the Committee could look at that and that my Department could assist the Bill sponsor with its drafting and the need to address its flaws. However, at Second Stage, I will outline where I believe that the Bill, as drafted, is unworkable when it comes to the amount of payment that would be calculated.

The value of the payment would be based on what a parent would pay for a meal if their child was not entitled to free school meals. In post-primary schools, there is no single value for that, as pupils select the individual items that they wish to buy and pay the corresponding amount at the till. It is therefore not possible, in the Bill as drafted, to identify a single amount for the EA to pay to those families. The Bill also refers to the cost of "milk, meals or other refreshment". A free school meal does not include a drink, as fresh drinking water is available for free. That wording creates a direct mismatch with existing free school meals provision, with no rationale for that discrepancy. Those are fundamental flaws that go to the heart of whether the Bill can be consistently and fairly implemented in practice. As legislators, we have a duty to ensure that legislation is technically sound and workable. The Bill as drafted is neither.

The Bill also significantly underestimates the likely cost of payments in the years ahead, which compounds the affordability problem that I have already set out. The explanatory and financial memorandum states that the costs will rise:

Members, that is based on a 3·5% level of inflation. The reality for the Education Authority is that, since 2016-17, its cost of producing a meal has risen each year on average by 7·2%.

Mr Baker: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Givan: Yes, I am happy to give way to Mr Baker.

Mr Baker: Sorry to interrupt you.

Mr Givan: No, you are OK.

Mr Baker: It sounded like you said that it would be £23·2 million by 2033-34. Is that what you said? That means that it is not the £33 million you were portraying it as earlier.

Mr Givan: No, your explanatory and financial memorandum says that. I am highlighting what you have introduced. It says that it is £20·6 million in the current financial year, and then your Bill says that it is going to be £23·2 million by 2033-34. That is based on an inflationary increase of 3·5%. That figure is not my figure; it is the Bill sponsor's figure.

I am saying that the more accurate figure — I am now going to give you the details as to what it is and the basis on which I provided it — is that it will rise to £31·5 million by 2033. From 2016-17, the cost to the Education Authority of producing a meal has risen each year on average by 7·2%. That is more than double the rate that is being used by the Bill sponsor in his cost estimates. As was explained in my Department's draft five-year financial strategy, the EA will need to implement a planned multi-year programme of price increases to narrow the gap between its prices and its cost of producing the meals. That is essential to ensure the long-term sustainability of the EA school meals service. Under the Bill as drafted, such rises will result in higher holiday meal payments, increasing the overall funding that is required to implement it year after year. That will go well beyond the 3·5% annual increase that is referenced in the explanatory and financial memorandum.

That memorandum also underestimates the likely number of pupils who will be entitled to free school meals in the coming years and the number of eligible days per year when the payments would be required. Using more realistic projections and the 7·2% level of inflation, my officials estimate that the figure of £20·8 million in this financial year would rise to £31·5 million by 2033-34. That cost for 2033-34 is over a third higher than what is estimated by the Bill sponsor, but I have no doubt that the Committee will want to explore that area to make sure that there is accuracy around the figure. I am happy for my officials to engage in that process.

Not only is the Bill unaffordable based upon the financial context that faces the Department that I outlined, it is even more unaffordable than the explanatory and financial memorandum estimates. Members are therefore being asked to vote for a Bill that imposes a permanent duty at a substantial cost without any certainty as to how it will be paid for at a time when the Education budget is already under unprecedented strain.

I believe that the Bill also misdiagnoses the problem that it seeks to solve. If a child is hungry, it is not because schools are closed during holiday periods. The cause is that the child's family does not have sufficient income to meet their basic food needs. That poverty did not begin when the school term ended or end when it resumed. It also exists on weekends, in the evenings and throughout the whole year. A child who experiences food poverty is not experiencing it alone. The rest of their family also experiences it, and some parents may be quietly skipping meals so that their children can eat. Food poverty is a household problem that belongs to the whole family, and the Bill does not address that.

I also ask Members to consider what the Bill leaves out: the children who are below school age; the parents who manage the household budget and sometimes go without; the food poverty that exists every evening and weekend; and the many families who are just above the eligibility threshold for free school meals but are nonetheless struggling.

Mr Carroll: I appreciate the Minister's giving way. Minister, I will take you back slightly. You said that poverty is a "household problem". Do you agree with me and many others that it is a societal problem that requires political solutions rather than being just a household issue as such?

Mr Givan: I agree, and I made the point at the start of my contribution that it is a noble, worthy cause, and all of us should want to ensure that no child is hungry. It is a wider societal problem, and, in many homes, there are multiple reasons why there is food poverty and poverty. There are many causation factors that result in that. No parent or family ever wants to find themselves in poverty, so there can be no scapegoating and trying to blame parents for somehow getting themselves into that situation; no thinking that we, as a society, should somehow preside over and judge them and dismiss them, saying that it is their fault and that we should not support them. That is an appalling attitude for anybody to take, and it is one that I would never subscribe to. It is about finding the most effective way to address the issues. It is also about being honest around the limited financial resources that we have to make sure that those resources are spent in the most effective way. I am not disputing the premise on which the Member made his intervention — I agree with it — but it is about how effectively we address it.

We could pass the legislation and address a small part of the wider problem for a small part of the affected population for a small part of the year, but I believe that legislating in that way would create more problems than it would solve. I also believe that it is important to recognise that the Bill tackles the symptoms of food poverty not the causes. Food poverty affects families in different ways and for different reasons. Some experience it for long periods, others periodically. The causes are multiple, and the solutions that are needed to address it are multiple.

The Bill does nothing to make it less likely that the same families will need support with food poverty next year or the year after or, indeed, even in a decade's time. It introduces a statutory duty in response to a symptom, while leaving the causes entirely untouched. That is not a sustainable approach to a serious social challenge. Food poverty is rooted fundamentally in the issue of inadequate household income and wider social disadvantage. That requires a social welfare solution that is led collectively by the Executive. My Department and the EA will be ready to work with all other Departments to support any properly funded Executive-wide actions to tackle food poverty, but it would be much better if they help to tackle the root causes rather than the symptoms.

Another area of concern that I have with the Bill is that it would remove future flexibility. The Executive currently retain full flexibility to introduce measures that tackle food poverty. That flexibility matters because, as circumstances evolve, our response to food poverty needs to be able to evolve. That point has a consequence that has not yet been sufficiently acknowledged in the debate. It is not simply that a future, potentially more effective policy to support families in food poverty would have to work around the statutory duty; it is that the existence of the duty could make a future, potentially more effective policy less likely to be implemented. Any Executive considering their response to household food poverty would look at the cost of that response on top of the £21 million-plus required through the Bill. That makes the financial case for a more ambitious response harder to make, not easier. I have no doubt that all Members genuinely want to see food poverty addressed comprehensively, but they should understand that passing the Bill may entrench an inadequate response rather than help to deliver a better one.

It is not just about doing things right; it is about doing the right things. Everyone here can agree with the sentiment that has been expressed. We can all emotionally subscribe to wanting to address holiday hunger, but we have to ask whether the Bill will do that and do it effectively. That requires us to be dispassionate and not emotionally attached and to critically analyse whether we will achieve the objective. I believe that, when Members do that, they will say that there is a better way for it to be addressed.

I am not here simply to oppose the Bill. I want to be clear about what, I believe, the right response looks like. Northern Ireland needs a comprehensive approach to tackling food poverty for everyone. It is an approach that delivers a whole-family, year-round, Executive-wide and properly funded solution to food poverty that treats it as a consequence of households having insufficient income. That means more holistic actions to support all members of households in food poverty, not just focusing on a small cohort of school-age children on weekdays during school holidays. It means Executive-wide commitment and funding so that the cost is not borne by our schools and our children's education. The Department of Education will play its full part in any properly structured Executive-wide response. What is unreasonable and reckless, however, is to expect that my Department should carry the cost of the Bill alone. It would be an unfunded statutory duty that we do not have the budget to deliver without damaging the educational services that those same families' children depend on.

I have outlined clear reasons why the Bill should be opposed, the most important being that it would cause great harm by diverting funding from the Education budget to deliver the payments. I understand the aim of the Bill and the need for a solution to be found for families in food poverty. However, this is a blunt instrument that is being applied to a complex and wide-ranging problem that goes far beyond school-age children and school holiday periods. There may be merit in Members saying, "If only the Executive were bringing forward this legislation". I have outlined why that has not happened: it was not in the Programme for Government. More than 90% of MLAs are in parties that are in that Government, but that proposal was not included. However, just because it has not been brought forward and Members are frustrated, that does not justify coming forward with a private Member's Bill and wanting the Assembly to vote for that in order to somehow send the message, "If somebody else had done that, I would not have had to bring it forward".

Were this effective legislation that would address the core challenges of food poverty in our society, I would vote for it. It would create a financial problem for the Executive, but, if I felt that it would fundamentally change food poverty in Northern Ireland for families who need that help, I would say that it was a priority. However, Members, this is not the best way to do that, and we should be careful about proceeding down this route. As legislators, we have a duty to ensure that legislation is well conceived, technically sound, appropriately funded and directed at the correct public bodies. In my view, the Bill fails on all of those counts. It tackles the symptoms but not the causes, and it ignores more than it addresses. It is currently unworkable in practice, and it distorts the primary purpose of the Department of Education. Crucially, it risks making an already massively underfunded education system even less able to deliver for our children. It robs from the education of Peter to fund the holiday meal payments of Paul. That does not make good law, nor would it deliver the outcomes that are genuinely needed for families who are in food poverty.

We owe it to families in food poverty to get this right, and we owe it to children to protect the education system that they depend on. The Bill does not meet that test. Therefore, Members, I am unable to support it and will vote against it. However, I know that it will go to the Committee for Education, whose members will be able to interrogate it further. I trust that they, in carrying out the scrutiny role that we, as legislators, have to do, will come to the same conclusion as I came to on the Bill. In no way is that to detract from the Bill sponsor's genuine motivation in bringing it forward. I commend him for that work. It is an honourable thing that he seeks to do, but, on this occasion, I do not believe that it is the most effective way to do it.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

I call the Bill sponsor, Danny Baker, to conclude and make his winding-up speech on the debate on the Bill's Second Stage.

Mr Baker: You will be glad to know that I will not take too much time. It has been a really good debate covering a lot of areas. At times, I thought that we were having a full Budget debate, with the Minister's very long way of saying no to the Bill. I appreciate what everyone has said. I have been honest from the get-go, since I proposed and carried out my consultation on my private Member's Bill, and did not shy away from anything. I know that it will have implications for the Department of Education.

Today, this is my Bill, but only for today. It will now be in the hands of everybody else, and I am not naive about that. We will go into Committee, where anyone can table amendments. Honestly, I will sit and work with anybody to strengthen the Bill and make it better. I took my approach after guidance from the Speaker's Office on what a private Member's Bill had to be in this mandate.

The policy intent had to be narrow. I could not think of a better place to start to end child poverty. I think that it is a really good, strong Bill. It is not at all poorly drafted. It provides flexibility. If I picked up the Minister correctly when he spoke about money, it sounded as though he was saying that the Education Authority will put up the price of school meals even more in the time ahead for families who are already struggling. If it does that, the Bill will not have been poorly drafted. Rather, it will give more support to those who qualify for it.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that if it is said that a Bill is poorly drafted, it may not be the Member's fault and may be a case of the Minister or somebody else questioning the role and effectiveness of the drafters?

Mr Baker: I agree. Look, as a new Member, everything is a learning curve for me. As the years go on, you learn every single day. I have tried to think of the situation in the future. I believe that the legislation would be needed even if we had universal free school meals in the morning. It will not hit everybody, but it will hit the most disadvantaged.

Members talked about evidence today. I met every sector that would meet with me, and all agreed. Every one of them provided evidence. I am sure that we have all been given it, because the reality has been expressed here, time and again, in different motions. The threshold to qualify for free school meals is very low. The scheme is for low-income families. The Bill targets the most disadvantaged. Are there people who will fall just outside its scope? Yes. That is why I said that it is only one piece of the puzzle. Can the Department for Communities come along and propose an amendment to raise the threshold? That would bring with it more cost, but would it not be a good thing to do? We should not be naive about that. I get that it is easy to support motions. I know that this is an ask of everyone, so table amendments to the Bill. I mean that.

Simply doing nothing is not good enough. At no stage have I been able to put my hand on my heart and say honestly that there are any good anti-poverty measures in place right now. I do not see them. If Members have a better way in which to spend £20 million, happy days, but, if that is the case, where are their private Members' Bills? Where is the Minister's legislation? Let us debate the issue. I am giving Members something to work off. As I said, the Bill was mine only until today. After today, it belongs to every Member in here. I would much prefer the Minister to take the Bill off me today and implement it himself. I would shake his hand and walk away. I really would. That would be a good day at the office for me.

That is where I will finish. I will not go around the houses on everything. There was a bit of concern around unforeseen consequences. I assure Members that I am aware of every possible outworking of the legislation, and I am working in parallel on them. I am genuinely not worried about there being unforeseen consequences at this stage. I will relieve any concerns that Members have about that. I am over the detail. I have lived and breathed the Bill for the past two years.

I mentioned in my opening remarks the young person who was filling his pockets with food. I picked this issue because the community and voluntary sector and our youth sector are doing all the heavy lifting. It has been said that we will open the doors of more schools. Come on, folks: the community and voluntary sector is doing that, but we are not supporting it. That is what the Bill is about. No child should be filling their pockets during the holiday periods and then going back to school malnourished, but that is what is happening. Those children are then weeks and months behind their peers who are lucky enough, as I say about my own children, not to have to worry about having to do that. An eight-year-old should not have to worry about such things. Why is that so important when it comes to education? It is because that is their pathway. We still test children at the ages of 10 and 11. Come on: children are being tutored for that test, yet there are other children sitting there with zero in their belly. How is that a fair system? How are we opening doors and pathways for any child when the system is still like that?

Minister, you stand there and say, "Yes, but I would have to make cuts elsewhere". Yes, of course the Bill would have ramifications. I also do not like it when you go straight for the jugular when it comes to the Youth Service. It is not lost on me that funding for the Youth Service will no longer be ring-fenced by the Department. There is now an onus on the Education Authority to provide that service.

I did not want to go down this route, but Colin McGrath talked about something that I know well. Like me, he has been a youth worker. It is no coincidence that, in holiday times, there is trouble at interfaces and trouble in our communities. Folks, that is a cry for help. When the doors of the youth club are opened and pizzas are put on, the youth club is filled. The kids are there, and it is because they are hungry.

They are not bad boys and girls; they are just being left behind.

We have an opportunity to do something. If you want to say that I have drafted the Bill badly, go ahead. If you think that you could spend the money differently, that is grand; show me. I am going to fight tooth and nail during Committee Stage and the further stages. I am going to fight all of you to get the Bill over the line. I look forward to it.

Folks, thank you for today. I will see you in Committee on Wednesday.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That was a very good and well-tempered debate.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That concludes the Second Stage of the Education (Holiday Meal Payments) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Committee for Education. Well done.

I welcome Julie Middleton to the Assembly. You did not have long to get your feet under the table before your first vote. It is good to see another woman in the Chamber.

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

Mr Kearney: I beg to move

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

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

The European Union has played a pivotal role in securing the success of the Good Friday Agreement. Since the original Peace I funding of 1995, financial support from the EU has underpinned the progress of our peace process. Since 2021, over £1·1 billion in PEACE PLUS funding has been invested in the Six Counties and border counties. Significant investments across every council district in the North and the region along the border have ensured socio-economic regeneration and transformation. Those programmes have empowered and supported young people and vulnerable groups and promoted peacebuilding and inclusion work across our society.

PEACE PLUS programmes targeted at health and well-being projects and at stimulating local enterprise have provided a vital lifeline for some of our most disadvantaged urban and rural neighbourhoods. In my constituency of South Antrim, for instance, we have benefited from the PEACE PLUS change maker funding programme, with a recent allocation of £4·4 million to Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council that is specifically to fund community-building activities and infrastructure projects aimed at promoting well-being and reconciliation.

In late 2025, my Sinn Féin colleague Kathleen Funchion MEP drew attention to the uncertainty of post-2027 PEACE PLUS funding. Current EU budgetary proposals infer that, from 2028, PEACE PLUS will be delivered only through allocations from the British and Irish Governments, with no proposed central allocation from the European Union. That is a significant change and will have serious consequences for the continuity of available funding for PEACE PLUS programmes. Between 2021 and 2027, the EU contribution to PEACE PLUS funding totalled approximately €235 million, which was allocated through the European regional development fund (ERDF). The loss of such a quantum will have hugely negative implications for this region. It will create even deeper uncertainty for the community-based groups that have helped to drive forward our peace process.

That third sector of our economy has already been abandoned by successive British Governments, who have failed to live up to their spoken commitment to replace all European funding in the aftermath of the Brexit debacle. British Government policy on the North has resulted in a 64% cut to funding for our community and voluntary sector. The result has been thousands of jobs, as well as critical services on which many of our citizens rely, being jeopardised. The threat of further loss of investment in the delivery of vital community-led services, which include working with victims and survivors of our conflict, employment training opportunities, support for our young people and interventions in our most disadvantaged areas, must be addressed urgently. An amendment tabled by Sinn Féin MEP Kathleen Funchion has been adopted by the EU Regional Development Committee, which is calling for the central Brussels-funded allocation of PEACE PLUS to be reinstated immediately. A letter from Irish MEPs across all parties to the vice president of the European Commission reiterated that it was crucial to retain central Brussels funding for the PEACE PLUS programme post 2028.

Of course, the challenge of maintaining that financial support underlines the importance of this region having political representation in European Union institutions, particularly when they are making hugely consequential decisions about this place. This potential crisis is another example of how the democratic deficit caused by Brexit has left us vulnerable and exposed, yet pragmatic solutions, such as having EU observer status or opening a European Union office in Belfast, continue to be opposed by some in political unionism. Those representatives seem never to miss an opportunity to cut off their nose to spite their face. They then manufacture preposterous justifications for their opposition, including that such initiatives represent existential threats to the constitutional status quo. That is nonsense. Instead, work is being taken forward by Sinn Féin MEPs to address the potential funding crisis. The peace and political processes are, as we know, still works in progress, but the wrecker's agenda pursued by some in the Assembly and the incessant attempts to disrupt political stability in the North by raking up our past political conflict illustrate that reality.

Now is not the time to cut programmes that have been central to the transformation that we have all enjoyed. At a time when the world is increasingly threatened by war and geopolitical instability and even the European Union is increasingly moving towards increased militarisation, investing in peace must take precedence over funding war. It is imperative that we send a united voice from the Assembly to those in the European Commission and Parliament who will be paying attention to this evening's debate about the importance of continuing full PEACE PLUS funding. At this time, we need political consensus in the Assembly on calling on the European Union, the British Government and the Irish Government to remain fully committed to funding the post-2028 period and to helping us to open up the next phase of our peace process, which should be based on national reconciliation and reunification.

Mr Brett: The Democratic Unionist Party recognises the tangible benefits that PEACE PLUS funding has delivered to communities across Northern Ireland, particularly at a grassroots level. We welcome the prospect of continued funding beyond 2027 and agree that clarity is needed on future allocations to give certainty to community organisations and their partners. However, the allocations must provide value for money and the outcomes must be a key consideration. As a party, we will continue to engage constructively to ensure that the programme strengthens stability, prosperity and community confidence across all parts of Northern Ireland. We will continue to support measures that deliver real benefits to communities but we will not endorse attempts to politicise what should remain a programme that focuses on securing positive and tangible outcomes for our society and economy.

We welcome the investment, but let us remember that we, the UK taxpayer, make up the vast majority of the funding. Of course, that is not referenced in the motion because it does not suit the narrative that is being pursued by some. Some 75% of PEACE PLUS funding —

Dr Aiken: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brett: I will in a second, Dr Aiken.

Some 75% of PEACE PLUS funding is provided by the UK Government, which is not bad from what the party opposite describe as the "big, bad Brits".

Dr Aiken: I thank the Member for giving way. My point, which the Member has quite ably put on the record, is the fact that PEACE PLUS funding and previous funding have always been paid for by the United Kingdom, no matter what way you look at it, because the United Kingdom has been a net contributor. When we look specifically at the funding, we are not getting money from the EU; we are getting our own money back.

Mr Brett: Dr Aiken has made the point that I was going to come on to: PEACE PLUS funding is not an EU grant, as some have suggested. It is heavily funded by the UK Government to the degree of 75% and, indeed, the Northern Ireland Executive here in Belfast.

It is vital that the contribution made by UK taxpayers is properly recognised, and it is disappointing that neither the preamble nor the countless words in the motion contain a recognition that three quarters of the funding comes from our national Government in Westminster. With the majority of the funding coming from Westminster, engagement with our national Government will be crucial to securing any future investment and funding for Northern Ireland, and our Members of Parliament and in the House of Lords will continue to show up to engage on those important issues.

Although financial support from the European Union has been welcomed in the years since, we should not overstate its role in the Belfast Agreement. On Saturday, I read nonsense on Twitter when the deranged character Richard Neal claimed that the United States was a guarantor of the Belfast Agreement. This morning, I read the motion, and I was told that the European Union's support was vital to securing the Belfast Agreement. I will happily give way to those on the Benches opposite if they can articulate the role that the European Union played in securing the Belfast Agreement. No, because no such role existed.

The revisionism that takes place in the Chamber is, frankly, laughable. I may still be young and fresh-faced, but despite my boyish good looks, I can remember a time when Sinn Féin shared this party’s position on Europe. Where was Sinn Féin on the Maastricht treaty? Opposed to it. Where was Sinn Féin on the Treaty of Rome? Opposed to it. Where was Sinn Féin on the Treaty of Lisbon? Opposed to it. However, once the United Kingdom decided to leave the European Union, Sinn Féin claimed to be the biggest cheerleader for the European project. The fact is that its record says something else.

I feel bad, but I want to break it to Mr Kearney that no one in the European Union is watching the debate here today. It will file the motion under the same letterhead that it did when we passed a pointless motion calling for an EU office, which was rejected. When we passed a pointless motion in the House calling for observer status for Northern Ireland in the European Union, it was ignored. If it makes Mr Kearney and others feel great to say that the motion went through, we will let that be the case, but it will be filed under "Thank you very much".

Let us remember that the funding is important, but the overwhelming majority of it is provided by our national Government, and that needs to be recognised in the House today.

Mr Dickson: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the motion. The Alliance Party will support the motion. Having just listened to Mr Brett, I feel that it might be worthwhile to take a step back for a moment and look at what PEACE PLUS does, because sometimes in the Chamber we can get caught up in the debate and lose sight of what we are talking about. There have been 145 projects. We have shared spaces where communities that spent decades apart now share a building, a sports pitch and a park. There are community groups that would never otherwise have had the resources to do what they do. There are cross-border partnerships between people who have found out over the years that working together makes sense and young people in border communities getting opportunities that they would not otherwise have had. That is what we are being asked to support and protect. In my constituency of East Antrim, millions of pounds or euros have been spent and will continue to be spent on and invested in community regeneration, peaceful communities and respect for cultural buildings.

The motion notes that there is an agreement in principle for a successor programme beyond 2027. That is welcome; the Alliance Party welcomes it. However, an agreement in principle is not a guarantee of funding. I want to be clear about the specific concern that Members need to understand. In previous Peace programmes, the EU provided a dedicated central allocation — money was ring-fenced in the EU budgets specifically for the programme. That ring-fenced allocation is not in the European Commission's current proposal for the 2028-2034 multi-annual financial framework. The Commission's position as things stand is that Ireland should fund any successor from its wider EU allocation and the British Government's contribution should be as before. I am not totally confident about leaving it to either of those Governments, particularly when you consider the UK Government's betrayal regarding the 64% drop in the local growth fund. We will need a specific guarantee and EU commitment. That is the only way to give our community organisations the certainty that they need to plan for the future.

I welcome the work that done by MEPs on the European Parliament Committee on Regional Development to secure central allocations and any successor programme. That work matters and is to be commended, but the multi-year financial framework negotiations will not conclude until the end of 2026 at the earliest, and there is considerable road to be travelled before anything is settled. The time for the Government to make their case is now, not after the budget has been decided and the opportunities for influence have passed.

It is disappointing that the Executive Office is not here to hear the debate. The reset of the relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union represents a genuine opportunity. We have already seen progress on ERASMUS, the emissions trading schemes and the sanitary and phytosanitary arrangements, and I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister has announced new rules to keep in step with the EU that will be introduced through secondary legislation. That demonstrates clearly that, where Governments make decisions, something matters and progress follows. I would like the First Minister and deputy First Minister to hear the message from the Chamber this evening, and I would like them to make decisions about PEACE PLUS and make the case for a ring-fenced central allocation directly at the highest level and not to leave it to officials or correspondence, as is often their wont. PEACE PLUS exists because of the Good Friday Agreement. The Special EU Programmes Body that manages it is one of the cross-border bodies established under the agreement. This is not a standard EU regional development fund that is to be quietly absorbed into a national allocation; it is something unique to this place. It builds on a unique set of circumstances, and it deserves to be treated responsibly.

Ms D Armstrong: I am happy to speak on the motion on behalf of the UUP. I do so having seen at first hand the tangible, positive impact that PEACE PLUS funding has delivered for communities across Northern Ireland. I welcome future funding beyond 2027 in the same vein. However, let me be clear: the success of PEACE PLUS is not the property of any one party or any single Government. It is the product of cooperation between the United Kingdom, Ireland, the European Union and, most important, the communities on the ground who bring the projects to life. That is precisely why it is so disappointing that we are presented with a motion that seeks not to reflect that shared effort but to appropriate it. We should call that out for what it is. The motion is less about delivery and more about self-congratulation. It is an attempt to wrap a collective achievement in party political branding. The proposers go as far as to explicitly praise their own MEPs, which, frankly, speaks volumes about the true intention behind the debate. At a time when public confidence in the Assembly is fragile and when people are crying out for serious governance and meaningful outcomes, we should not use the Chamber as a platform for electioneering. We are sent here and paid by the taxpayer to deal with the real challenges facing our constituents: growing the economy, improving public services and delivering stability. Instead, we are debating another non-binding motion that imitates action rather than delivering it.

PEACE PLUS funding has been transformative and has supported grassroots organisations, strengthened cross-border economic links and invested in communities that too often feel left behind. It has also played a vital role in rural regeneration, tourism development and fostering the stability that underpins long-term economic growth. For that we are thankful. We must be able to clearly demonstrate the success of PEACE PLUS support for communities not just in terms of funding allocated but in terms of what is actually being delivered. The Ulster Unionist Party wants to see the outworkings of the projects — tangible results that improve lives, strengthen communities and leave a lasting legacy.

Given the financial constraints facing the British Government, there is uncertainty as to whether equivalent funding will be brought forward to replace PEACE PLUS in the years ahead, particularly in the post-Brexit context. I have seen positive examples of cross-border cooperation in my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, and I must also raise an issue that is too often overlooked: fairness in the allocation of funding under some of the themes. Not every community starts from the same place. Some organisations simply do not have the capacity, expertise or resources to submit complex applications and compete successfully for funding. That creates an imbalance whereby those in need can sometimes be those least able to access support. Let me give a practical example. Enniskillen Rugby Football Club is a highly successful sporting organisation with recent promotions for men and women's teams to the All Ireland League. A strong cross-community group plays within that club, and it continues to operate out of a clubhouse dating back to the 1970s, with facilities that are no longer fit for purpose. Despite the clear cross-community benefit and inclusivity of that club, it was unsuccessful in a recent application for funding. That is hard to accept for a club like that. That raises important questions about how funding decisions are made and whether they are truly equitable.

Let us also inject a degree of balance into the debate. As Mr Brett said, the United Kingdom has contributed the overwhelming majority of PEACE PLUS funding: well over 75% of the €1·1 billion programme. That fact alone should challenge the tired narrative that we so often hear that Northern Ireland receives nothing from Westminster. Furthermore, as my colleague Dr Aiken pointed out, throughout the UK's time in the EU, we were, unlike the Republic of Ireland, a net contributor. The Ulster Unionist Party recognises the value of PEACE PLUS, and we support the principle of continued funding so that the programmes continue to succeed. However, we will not endorse political grandstanding dressed up as delivery.

Mr O'Toole: It has been an interesting debate this evening, and we are happy to support the motion. PEACE PLUS has been a hugely important financial support for this island, particularly the North and the border communities, as we journeyed from conflict into peace. I welcome the fact that we are able to debate its continuation today, and I welcome the fact that there is in-principle agreement from London, Dublin and Brussels that PEACE PLUS will continue. I agree that there is some concern about the central funding, and I welcome the fact that MEPs are working on that, so I am happy to confirm our agreement to all of that. Obviously, it would have been more impactful to have the First Minister and deputy First Minister here to respond to the debate or, even better, to have embraced this as a policy collectively. Given that it would appear that the parties of both the First Minister and deputy First Minister are in agreement with the motion, even if they present the text in a slightly different way, it would probably have been, in a sense, more useful for them to have collectively communicated that agreement in person or via some other means to London, Dublin and the European Union, rather than our coming here to debate the motion. Nevertheless, we support the motion.

People have talked about their parties' perspectives. My party is strongly pro-European and always has been. Mr Brett was talking about the history of Sinn Féin: perhaps, it was not quite as pro-European as it is now. He talked about being old enough to remember Sinn Féin not being so pro-European. Of course, I am old enough to remember not just the DUP's stance on Brexit but a certain MEP from this part of the world getting kicked out of the European Parliament for calling the Pope an Antichrist. Now, the DUP is in league with a fella who literally presents himself as Christ on social media. What a turn up for the books. Talk about meeting yourself coming back. We all evolve over the years. Sometimes, certain people should, perhaps, look at their own history and think more carefully before they call out others.

Dr Aiken: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: Sure, yes.

Dr Aiken: I just wanted to say that I quite enjoyed that little interaction. Well done, Matthew. Thank you [Laughter.]

Mr O'Toole: Thank you.

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

Mr O'Toole: I do not need another minute. It is fine, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Let me say this: PEACE PLUS is an extraordinarily important fund. It is extraordinarily important for community groups and voluntary organisations that have benefited from it in the border counties and across the North. As Stewart Dickson said appositely a moment ago, it is a unique fund. Therefore, while people will say, "Ah, but the UK was a net contributor and a lot of that money was funded by the UK Government", and that is true — I have no difficulty in acknowledging that the UK Government clearly are a major and, in fact, majority funder and I am glad that, even in the dark days, Tory Brexiteers were willing to fund it — it is a distinct and unique pot of funding. It has a specific purpose and set of purposes that are distinct from other areas of European funding. It has helped with the process of reconciliation. I hope that it can help with the continued process and ongoing work of conflict resolution and reconciliation on this island.

It would be remiss of me not to mention — it has not been mentioned thus far — another issue with regard to European successor funding that looms large in Northern Ireland at the minute: the loss, a few years ago, of European social funding. The European social fund was critical to funding things like employability and employment-related support. It was succeeded by something called the "Shared Prosperity Fund". Most people in the Chamber were not fans of it, but it did, at least, continue the cash amount of funding for a year or two. Those organisations were able to continue that work. Now, the Labour Government have insisted on a local growth fund that is calibrated differently, with an emphasis on capital as opposed to resource. That has created an extreme problem for local organisations. The frustrating thing for them is that the UK Government's short-termist and, frankly, reckless and heedless approach has been made worse by the fact that the Executive have simply put their hand up and said, "Talk to them. Go away and talk to London. Not our problem, not our doing". It is important to note that, because people have also talked in the Chamber about who has paid for what.

When the old European social fund ended, the Executive saved money. That was a match-funded project. The Executive match-funded the European social fund work on employability in Northern Ireland. When that fund came to an end in 2024, they saved £30 million. We have never found out where that £30 million went, but the community and voluntary organisations that have had to lay people off and stop doing work for vulnerable communities were told, "No, we do not have any money", despite the fact that, just a few years ago, the Executive saved £30 million. Therefore, when we are accounting for European funding and match funding, let us reflect on that and on the fact that the Executive, in conjunction with the UK Government, have, I am afraid, let down the organisations who benefited from the European social fund. When it comes to PEACE PLUS, I hope that we never get anywhere near that.

I commend the Member who proposed the motion. It is apposite. It is right that we agree that it should be brought forward. However, we would be better hearing from the First Minister and deputy First Minister, whose collective voice on behalf of the devolved Government in this region would have even more impact in London, Dublin and Brussels to ensure that that funding continues. My party is happy to support the motion.

Mr Gaston: The Assembly has been back for less than a day, and here we go again, debating another non-binding motion in praise of the EU. The only thing that the motion sets out to achieve is to show that the "Remoaners" yearn to outdo each other in who can be crowned the chief Europhile. My goodness, when I look around the Chamber, I see that five rigorous implementers have turned out for this "interesting debate", as Mr O'Toole put it. We have heard from those who lauded the £1 billion worth of funding that was allocated to 145 projects from the 2021-27 scheme so far, but one does not have to dig very deep before discovering some problems that lie behind the glossy spin and warm words of Mr Kearney as he opened the debate.

In advance of the debate, all Members received a copy of a document entitled 'PEACE PLUS At A Glance'. It was included in the briefing pack that was produced by the Assembly Research and Information Service ahead of this "interesting debate", as Mr O'Toole said. That document contains a startling fact on page 6:

That is startling. It also talks about how:

I know that that will not concern many Members in the House, who are never too concerned about value for money, but surely even the Northern Ireland Assembly must see the issue here. After €3·39 billion of spend, the area remains the most economically and socially disadvantaged today. Granted, the period from 1995 to the present day is a reasonable length of time, but €3·39 billion is an eye-watering sum. At what point do you question whether there is value for money in what is spent on those projects? Yes, PEACE PLUS has delivered some great projects and supported some great organisations, but how can those targeted areas still be the most economically and socially disadvantaged today after that type of spend? If you were to take that spend and spread it across the whole of Northern Ireland, it would amount to around €1,800 per person, yet here it was focused on the border communities, which, by the programme's own admission, remain the "most economically and socially disadvantaged".

Regardless of whether or not one wants to face that point, it is worth noting that the motion acknowledges that we have an:

In essence, therefore, the motion is, like most of the non-binding motions we debate in the Chamber, pointless. The Assembly is simply being asked to rubber-stamp something that has already been agreed by the EU and the British Government —

Mr Dickson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: — but, sure, it is time well spent as long as the "Remoaners" get the opportunity to big up their Europhile credentials.

I am happy to give way to Mr Dickson.

Mr Dickson: Having listened to Mr Gaston, I am interested in getting his assessment, as a former member of Mid and East Antrim Borough Council, of the value that he places on the £5·1 million that that local authority has in this year's budget to deliver PEACE PLUS projects across Mid and East Antrim, which covers part of the constituency that he represents?

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

Mr Gaston: I thank Mr Dickson. Yes, I acknowledged that PEACE PLUS has supported some good organisations and delivered some good projects, but we are talking about €3·39 billion here, Stewart, not £5·1 million. That is a small proportion of what has been allocated. I want to see value for money. I want to see that money being spent right, but what have we got so far? The money has been plunged into border counties, and the fact that they are still the most socially and economically disadvantaged causes me great concern. That, to me, rings the same alarms bells as were rung by Communities in Transition. Just because you are throwing money at certain projects does not mean that you are delivering results. It does not mean that you are getting outcomes and value for money. We need to pay greater attention to this. If the money continues, which the motion acknowledges, and there is a future scheme, I want to see better value for money being delivered in the projects selected by local authorities.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Colm Gildernew to conclude and make a winding-up speech on the motion. You have up to 10 minutes.

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

I will start by thanking all Members who took part in the debate on what most of us can agree is a really important issue. As my party colleague set out, PEACE PLUS funding has been transformational for the North in bringing divided communities together, tackling economic disadvantage, developing skills for young people and providing money for projects around physical and mental health.

Since 1994, more than £3·5 billion of PEACE PLUS money has been spent on communities here, creating thousands of jobs in the process and providing a vital boost to our economy. Programmes such as Peace IV and PEACE PLUS have delivered real and lasting changes to communities that have suffered greatly as a result of the conflict. So far today, we have heard many examples of projects that have been funded by Peace money. In my area, another powerful example is the South Tyrone Empowerment Programme, which supports vulnerable people to access vital services in the south Tyrone area.

Another very positive example of PEACE PLUS funding is Cooperation and Working Together (CAWT), which has been crucial in strengthening cross-border healthcare along the border corridor. That has been instrumental in supporting the establishment of life-saving services, such as the North West Cancer Centre in Derry, and many other vital cross-border physical and mental health services.

Those examples serve as a reminder of the huge benefits that the North enjoyed as a member of the European Union prior to Brexit. It cannot be overestimated or overstated just how vital it is to so many communities that EU Peace funding continue after the conclusion of PEACE PLUS in 2027. The removal of the funding next year would be absolutely catastrophic in its impact on vulnerable people.

The timing of the debate today is very appropriate, given all the issues that the community and voluntary sector is facing with the local growth fund. The British Government promised that it would fully replace the lost EU funding, but, as we all know, it has failed miserably to live up to that.

Since Brexit, Sinn Féin has been fighting hard in the European Parliament to have the PEACE PLUS programme extended beyond 2027, and the confirmation in principle that there will be additional funding beyond next year is hugely welcome. However, with the 2027 deadline fast approaching, we urgently need to see proposals for a replacement scheme being brought forward, and, crucially, we need confirmation of the quantum of funding that is likely to be provided.

Many community organisations will be anxiously wondering whether their funding will still be in place beyond 2027. They deserve to have some clarity on what lies ahead. I urge everyone to vote for the motion.