Official Report: Tuesday 21 April 2026

Mr Speaker: I have received correspondence from the Minister of Justice that she is unable to be in the Chamber today. The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs will respond to both the motion on tackling antisocial scrambler and e-scooter use and the motion on drug dealing sentencing on her behalf.

Mr Baker: When will the Education Minister start listening? New research from Dublin City University and St Mary's University College, Belfast, should be a wake-up call to the House. Some 91% of teachers are experiencing burnout; nearly half are considering leaving the profession; and 95% say that workload is the driving factor. In Irish-medium education, the situation is even more challenging. That is not sustainable. Teachers are running on empty.

It has been a year since a workload review was commissioned and six months since recommendations were produced, yet there is still no action. Instead, the Minister piles more surveys, more consultations, more initiatives, more paperwork and more bureaucracy onto teachers and school leaders with absolutely no support, all in the pursuit of his harmful and regressive reform agenda. He is adding more pressure to a workforce that is already at breaking point.

Our teachers go above and beyond every day. They bring work home. They wash uniforms. They dip into their own pockets to feed children. They are carrying the weight of the system on their back. Teachers do not need warm words; they need action. The Minister needs to listen and listen now. Our teachers have had enough. They deserve an Education Minister who has their back and who cares. For my part, I will continue to stand up for our teachers and school leaders until they get the support that they deserve.

Mr Dunne: Today, we mark 100 years since the birth of Queen Elizabeth II. It is a moment to reflect on a truly extraordinary life that helped shape modern Britain and, indeed, the wider world. Born in 1926, Queen Elizabeth could not have foreseen the long path that lay ahead, yet, from a young age, she very much understood duty. During the Second World War, she served in uniform, and, at just 25 years old, she became Queen, beginning a truly remarkable reign that would span more than 70 years.

Even before she ascended to the throne, she set out the principle that truly defined her life; aged just 21, she pledged that her whole life, whether long or short, would be devoted to service. It was a promise that she faithfully and truly kept right to her last day, during her long and glorious reign.

Queen Elizabeth's lifetime witnessed immense change, from post-war recovery to the digital age and from empire to commonwealth. Through it all, she remained a constant presence, steady and composed, guided by a deep sense of duty and faith. She visited more countries than any other monarch in history and made 25 visits to Northern Ireland, demonstrating a steadfast commitment to every part of her United Kingdom even in the most challenging of times. In moments of celebration, she shared in our nation's joy; in times of hardship and sadness, including conflict and the most recent global pandemic, her words brought reassurance, calm and inspiration to many. Many will remember her simple yet powerful message that we would meet again.

Of course, her long reign was not without challenges and much change over many years, but what endured was her resilience, her willingness to adapt, her unwavering dedication to constitutional responsibility and her remarkable leadership. As we mark the centenary of her birth, we remember the late Queen with deep affection and profound gratitude for her leadership. We cherish her enduring legacy. That leadership is still missed to this day in these difficult and challenging times. Her example of duty, dedication, resilience and selfless service continues to inspire us all. One hundred years on from her birth, we can say with confidence that we will truly never see her like again. Hers was a life defined not by words alone but by her unwavering commitment and lifetime of service to others.

Ms D Armstrong: I, too, take a moment today to mark what would have been the 100th birthday of the late monarch, Queen Elizabeth II. She was a woman who devoted herself entirely to a life of service. She stood as a constant — steady, gracious and unwavering. She was a beacon not just for a nation but for people across the world. Through decades of change, through moments of joy and profound sorrow and through no small number of personal family difficulties, she never faltered. She faced every challenge with quiet dignity and composure, using her position always in the service of others.

That spirit of service began long before she took the throne. In October 1940, a 14-year-old Princess Elizabeth broadcast on the BBC's 'Children's Hour', speaking to the evacuated children of a nation at war. She offered sincere sympathy to those separated from their families and missing those whom they loved the most. She spoke of the courage and cheerfulness that she saw around her, of her trust in God and of her belief that peace would come and the children of that day would grow up to make the world a better place. That thread of faith, compassion and hope never left her.

Here in our community, her passing was felt deeply. She was not a distant figure; she came to us, she walked among us and she listened. Her support for the peace process in Northern Ireland was personal and heartfelt. She understood what had been sacrificed to reach that fragile peace, and she honoured it in everything that she did. And then there was Enniskillen. In 2012, she came to Fermanagh, opened the South West Acute Hospital and, away from the cameras, privately met families who had lost loved ones in the 1987 Remembrance Sunday bomb. No photographers, no headlines: just a woman of immense compassion letting those families know that they had not been forgotten. That was her character.

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II gave a lifetime to service with dignity and grace. Back in 1940, she hoped that the children of that generation would make the world a better place, and perhaps what is most remarkable is that she did not simply wish for it; she lived it. She proved that one life lived with grace and purpose can truly make the world a better and happier place. She is gone, but she is not forgotten. We were truly fortunate to have known her reign.

Mr Gaston: Last year, I wrote to the UK Security Minister seeking clarity on whether the current Police Ombudsman was subject to developed vetting, whether that clearance remained active and what safeguards applied to the accessing of highly sensitive or national security-related material.

The response failed to answer those basic questions; instead, responsibility was passed elsewhere. The Minister stated that Departments determined who required clearance and, in that case, responsibility rested with Northern Ireland Departments. I then raised the matter with the First Minister, the deputy First Minister and the Justice Minister. Their responses provided no clarity either.

The position is now clear. Despite repeated questions, no authority has confirmed as a matter of fact that the Police Ombudsman holds active, developed vetting, only that it is said to be a condition of appointment. That is not good enough for a role that has access to sensitive policing information and material that may engage national security considerations. There must be clear accountability on the matter. The current situation, where responsibility is passed around but no answers are given, cannot continue. The Prime Minister's handling of the Mandelson appointment has raised significant questions on vetting and has exposed weaknesses. I trust that a full review will be carried out and that vetting must take place prior to appointments to posts requiring security clearance.

There are big questions about what goes on in this devolved Administration as well. If there is a question around Ms Anderson's clearance, how much more should there have been over Martin McGuinness, Gerry Kelly and indeed a member of the notorious Doris family from mid-Ulster?

Ms Sugden: During Allergy Awareness Week, I want to highlight an issue that, whilst relatively uncommon in any individual school on any given day, can have serious consequences when it arises: severe food allergy and anaphylaxis in our schools.

Anaphylaxis is not always obvious. We often think of severe breathing difficulties, but it can begin with more subtle signs: a child becoming dizzy or confused; having a persistent cough or hoarse voice; vomiting; swelling; having a rash; or simply not responding as they normally would. Those early signs matter, because, when a reaction takes hold, there is little time to act, and delay can have serious consequences. Children living with serious allergies are often capable of managing their condition. They understand the risks and the routine, but, in a severe reaction, they may not always be able to treat themselves. That is when adults around them need to step in quickly and with confidence, and that is where Northern Ireland falls short.

In England, following the tragic death of Benedict Blythe, steps have been taken to place allergy safety in schools on a statutory footing, including access to emergency pens, staff training and clear school policies. Here, we still rely on guidance. The Department's position makes it clear that there is no overarching legal duty on school staff to administer medication and that staff may choose not to volunteer. That is not a criticism of teachers; it is recognition that we are asking them to carry a significant responsibility without consistently giving them clarity, training or legal support to do so.

In our system, guidance alone is not enough. With different school sectors and boards of governors setting policies at their own local level, we inevitably end up with inconsistency. At present, it is largely treated as an individual medical issue for each child, managed through care plans in schools, but, when the risk is life-threatening and time-critical, it is no longer just an individual issue; it is a system-wide safety issue that requires a system-wide response. We have taken the same approach elsewhere: every school in Northern Ireland now has a defibrillator on site. We recognise that rare but critical incidents require preparation, consistency and confidence to act. Anaphylaxis deserves the same level of seriousness.

There is also a wider concern. Where schools do not feel properly equipped or supported to manage serious medical conditions, we risk creating situations where children are not fully accommodated. In some cases, it may lead to reluctance to admit them to that school, and that raises real concerns about equality of access to education. We should not allow that position to develop.

The lesson from Benedict's case in England is not about what went wrong but about what we can put right. It is about putting clear systems in place so that, when something happens, there is no hesitation and no uncertainty about what needs to be done in that moment.

Mr Gildernew: Ár gCumhacht, Ar bPlainéad is téama do Lá an Domhain amárach. Spreagann sé gach duine lena ról féin a imirt i bhforbairt ár gcomhshaoil. Tá ról ríthábhachtach ag an Tionól i gcur chun cinn an chomhshaoil. Ní mór dúinn a chinntiú go gcomhlíontar spriocanna glan-nialasachta leis an chomhshaol a chosaint agus le dul i ngleic leis an athrú aeráide. Ní ghlacfar leis an tséanadh ná leis an easpa gníomhaíochta.

Ní thig coinneáil linn bheith ag brath ar bhreoslaí iontaise, mar is léir ó na géarchéimeanna sa pholaitíocht agus san eacnamaíocht ar fud an domhain. Má bhí gá riamh le hinfheistíocht i straitéisí fuinnimh ghlais inbhuanaithe, lena n-áirítear scileanna glasa agus tionscadail in-athnuaite uile-oileáin, amhail gaoth amach ón chósta, tá gá práinneach léi anois.

Is maith is eol dúinn uilig go bhfuil bithéagsúlacht agus folláine éiceolaíoch Loch nEachach faoi bhagairt thubaisteach. Is cúis imní iad na tuairiscí deireanacha ar an alga ghormghlas ar loch an Bhréantair i mo cheantar. Má thig tú ar rud a shíleann tú go mb’fhéidir gur alga gormghlas é, déan é a thuairisciú tríd an aip Bloomin Algae nó tríd an Ghníomhaireacht Comhshaoil. Tá cosaint, tacaíocht agus cothabháil ár n-uisce ríthábhachtach dár ngeilleagar agus dár bhfolláine.

Molaim gach duine a d'eagraigh agus a ghlac páirt in imeachtaí Lá an Domhain ar fud an oileáin le seachtain anuas.

Mr Frew: Yesterday marked a hugely significant milestone, the 70th anniversary of the MS Society Northern Ireland and its unwavering support for people who are affected by MS. What began in England back in 1953, when founders Richard and Mary Cave responded to the glaring lack of support and treatments for people living with MS, sparked an interest in the MS community in Northern Ireland, with the first branches of the society being established here in 1956. The MS Society has grown into a remarkable national movement of care, research, awareness and community. Over the past seven decades, the MS Society has been at the heart of support for thousands of families. It has funded pioneering research right here at Queen's University Belfast, provided vital services, lobbied for better services and forged a community in which no one should face MS alone.

The MS Society Northern Ireland held an event yesterday in the Long Gallery, where I was able to meet and introduce myself to some exceptional characters, some tremendous people. One of them was Sam Young, a volunteer fundraiser with the MS Society. Sam's wife, Mae, was diagnosed with MS in 2019, which inspired him to take action. Sam has written two books, with all the proceeds going to MS research, raising thousands of pounds.

It is a particularly special privilege to recognise one person whose dedication reflects the absolute best of that community spirit. I am delighted to mention and to honour Pat Crossley, who has given 40 years of extraordinary voluntary service to the MS Society Northern Ireland and to the people of Ballymoney and beyond. Pat's journey with the Ballymoney group began four decades ago when she stepped forward to lend a hand, and, in doing so, she strengthened support in her local community, helped to maintain one of our longest-serving groups and embodied compassion in action. From organising social gatherings and exercise classes, to representing the MS Society at Downing Street and Buckingham Palace, to personal fundraising such as a parachute jump and abseiling, Pat's contribution has helped to raise funds and awareness in ways that truly uplift others. Through every decade of change, she has been a steadfast champion, not because it was easy but because caring has always been in her nature. Pat's dedication is not only to supporting people with MS but has helped to shape a community where hope, connection and support flourish. As one of Pat's MLAs, I thank her for her dedicated service. She even contacted me by email at 10.40 last night to thank me for being there yesterday.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Frew: Pat is indeed a trouper.

Ms Sheerin: I pay tribute to the newest champion of Ireland, Cahir McMaster from Ballinascreen, who was crowned all-Ireland champion after his boxing match at the weekend at the National Stadium in Dublin. I am delighted to speak about his success this morning.

Cahir is one of my constituents, and I know him well. Indeed, he, his brother, Oisin, and his sister, Aoibhinn, are three characters whom I regularly bump into. They are brilliant young people who always have time to stop and say hello. They have great manners, and there is always a bit of craic with them, so I am delighted at Cahir's success. It is a testament to the kind of people that they are that the first thing that Cahir's mother, Louise, wrote in her post acknowledging Cahir's success was to pay tribute to and thank his coaches at St John's Amateur Boxing Club in Swatragh. The McMasters are great people, and I love to see great people doing well.

Cahir narrowly lost in the semi-final last year, and this year he retained an Ulster title, so his boxing trajectory has been an upward one for some time. It has been obvious that this was in the pipeline for him. He can now say that he is an all-Ireland champion, and that will never be taken from him. I am sure that this is just the beginning for Cahir. It is not the end of his success. I look forward to watching that success unfold in the years to come, and I congratulate Cahir himself, his sister, Aoibhinn, his brother, Oisin, and his mother and father, Louise and Enda. I know that the whole of Ballinascreen is proud of Cahir's success and wishes him all the very best for the future.

Mrs Erskine: Yesterday, an important event took place in Enniskillen to raise awareness of ending violence against women and girls. A mural was officially unveiled in the town centre as part of Fermanagh and Omagh District Council's Murals with Meaning project. The mural, created by Hannah Constance, depicts a phoenix, which symbolises resilience, survival and strength. The artist herself said:

We must ensure that women are not forced to rise from the ashes in the first place. That means raising awareness, breaking silence and bringing abuse out of the shadows into the light so that every woman knows that she can speak out and get the help that she needs.

Kerrie Flood, the CEO of Fermanagh and Omagh Women's Aid, has done tremendous work in the local area. She is a force of nature, and her leadership continues to make a real difference to the lives of women and their families. Speaking about the mural, she said:

Those words should stay with us. Domestic abuse thrives in silence but is stopped by action, and we must call out domestic abuse at every opportunity. We have a duty not only to educate but to act. We have a strategy, and I am pleased that the second action plan on ending violence against women and girls is being launched as we speak. Plans alone will not save lives, but implementation will.

Since 2020, more than 30 women have been killed in Northern Ireland, and behind every name is a family and a future taken far too soon. In my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, we have seen too many lose their life as a result of domestic abuse. It is not an issue for one Department, one agency or one group of people. Rather, it is a societal issue. It reaches into every community, every street and every home, and we have a responsibility to recognise the signs, speak up and act. The recent murder of Amy Doherty in Londonderry is just another stark reminder of the urgency to do so. I also note the work being done on Jade's law, which seeks to better protect families affected by such devastating crimes. I support that call. It is time that we saw meaningful progress made on Jade's law in Northern Ireland.

I commend Fermanagh and Omagh District Council, Enniskillen business improvement district and the Executive Office for their funding to deliver such a powerful and visible message through that mural.

Women should not have to live in fear in our communities: not today, not tomorrow, not ever. It is time to end violence against women and girls.

Mr Robinson: I congratulate Limavady United, who, at the weekend, clinched their league title and will now play in the Sports Direct Premiership along with the likes of the current top four — the Coleraines, the Larnes, the Glentorans and the Linfields — two of which they have beaten recently. It is hard to put into words how much it means for the town: not just the players and staff but everyone connected to Limavady.

We all have to remember that the football club is not one that is built on big budgets or big headlines; it is built on people who have pride and passion for the local game and their local area. It is built on lads who train after work in all kinds of weather, coaches who give up their time, because they demand results, and supporters who turn up week in, week out, whether it is freezing or there is lashing rain, at the Showgrounds or any other venue across the Province. That is what makes the Playr-Fit Championship win so special.

I have had the opportunity to watch Limavady play on about a dozen occasions this season. I think about the season that they have had: grinding out results when it mattered, sticking together when things did not go their way and finding a little bit of quality on the big occasions. There were games that were not pretty, but the group of lads dug in, and the supporters got behind their team. There were games during which the football was brilliant, full of energy and belief, and there were a few bad days, but the group never lost sight of what it was chasing.

It has been an incredible team effort. You cannot talk about the league win without mentioning the way in which the players fight for one another and represent the Limavady badge. Those standards, including the pride that they should have in playing for the club, are set in the dressing room.

To the loyal band of supporters I say that this is your moment too. They have travelled and backed the team, believing that they could get the job done. I know that there were days this season when the support made the difference: the manager, Paul Owens, has admitted that. Sadly, in recent weeks, the club has lost loyal stalwarts Alec Trainor and Winston Moore, and, of course, we can look further back to see the club's biggest superfan, Mr David Brewster, who passed away suddenly five years ago. The party has been huge in the town, but it will be even bigger where those three are.

Winning the Playr-Fit Championship is not easy. It is a tough league, and it takes a lot of character and heart; the team has shown that. I say this to everyone connected with the club: "Enjoy this. Take it in, because history like this does not come around often". Limavady are champions, and that is fully deserved. The league table does not lie. From the House, I say, "Well done, every one of you".

Mr Harvey: I highlight the important role played by our uniformed youth organisations across Northern Ireland, particularly the Boys' Brigade (BB) and the Girls' Brigade (GB).

BB and GB displays are taking place across Northern Ireland as another season comes to a close. I am sure that many Members will have attended those events. Indeed, anyone who has attended a display will have seen at first hand the teamwork, friendship, discipline and respect demonstrated by the young people involved. Those qualities are the fruit of dedicated volunteer leaders' work week in, week out to support young people, providing them with much-needed structure and purpose and a sense of belonging that is grounded in a solid, faith-based context.

The BB and GB teach boys and girls to be responsible, respectful and community-minded, qualities that are becoming rarer in a culture that often prioritises individualism. It is regrettable that, all too often, government and external funders have been reluctant to support such organisations and unwilling to acknowledge the immense contribution that they make to the fabric of our society and the betterment of our people, simply because they operate with a faith-based perspective. I welcome the work being undertaken by the Communities Minister and others to rectify inequality and discrimination in that regard.

In an age of rising social isolation and social difficulties among children and young people, the opportunity for engagement and interaction in a social setting with peers, enjoying activities across sport, music and community service, continues to be vital to families and their boys and girls across the country.

Some Members will have attended the recent "Lost Boys" briefing by the Centre for Social Justice. Some of the figures for underachievement among young boys that were presented at that briefing were stark. The work of the BB is one of the best antidotes available to many of the problems being experienced across society. I trust that the House will make every effort to support not only our uniformed youth organisations but all those who volunteer to make a difference for the next generations.

Mr O'Toole: I beg to move

Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed that you can have up to one and a half hours for the debate. As an amendment has been selected, a further 15 minutes will be added to the motion. The proposer has 10 minutes to propose the motion, and there will be 10 minutes to wind up the debate.

Please open the debate.

Mr O'Toole: I have to say that it is shameful that, when we are having the first detailed, substantive and dedicated debate on the cost-of-living crisis created by the issues in the Middle East, there is such paltry participation from Executive parties. Some Executive parties have only one or two Members in the Chamber. In a month in which the public are losing trust in this institution and can see Members getting a large pay rise, there will be outrage at the pathetic attendance by Members of Executive parties at today's debate. Nevertheless, the Opposition are here to put forward the case that the people want to be made.

In exactly one week, the conflict in Iran will be two months old. We do not yet know what the conclusion of that war will be, but most serious people agree that the decision of Trump's America and Netanyahu's Israel to begin an aerial bombing campaign without a clear plan is one of the most idiotic and catastrophic military fiascos of the century. It is not just idiotic but immoral and illegal. It includes the killing of hundreds of schoolgirls in Minab and the obscene, genocidal threats of the madman Trump to wipe out an entire civilisation. Meanwhile, the Israeli Government have added to the list of their atrocities committed in Gaza more war crimes in south Lebanon.

Ordinary people in the North and everywhere have been left feeling helpless and powerless to respond to the insanity and immorality unfolding in the Middle East. Given the huge increase in tourism in the Gulf States and migration there for work, many families have been directly touched, because their relatives have found themselves sheltering from missiles. As we know — it is why we are having the debate — that insanity has had an impact on the costs that face everyday people, including ordinary workers getting to their jobs and families filling their oil tanks. The spike in international oil prices from between $60 and $70 a barrel to well over $100 has been seen on every forecourt in the country; indeed, on the first Monday after the strikes started, I saw the price rise between my drives to and from Stormont. One might reasonably ask why the price rises were felt from the Strait of Hormuz to Belfast forecourts, but that is a debate for another day. The price of home heating oil doubled and has remained high. It has now been £1,000 for 900 litres for more than a month. That spike happened faster and has already reached a higher peak than that created by Russia's ongoing invasion of Ukraine. It is not just households. Small businesses and farmers are, as we know, particularly exposed to increases in the cost of diesel and fertiliser. Community groups, churches and sports groups all will face extraordinary pressures from the price rises.

Listing those pressures is not going to do people any good. What they want to know from those whom they elect is what is being done to support them. They know that no one can predict Trump's actions or control energy markets, but, given how remote we are from the concerns of decision-makers in London — we all know that; it is repeated many times by Members in the Chamber — they had a right to expect leadership and responsibility from the Executive. However, the answer from the Northern Ireland Executive for weeks on end has been next to nothing. It has been non-existent. Computer says no. Talk to the hand, or perhaps talk to London. It has been, quite simply, a complete abdication of responsibility.

To be clear, the Executive do not have limitless financial firepower to deal with the consequences. We in the Opposition have never said otherwise. The responsibility for, for example, fuel duty obviously rests with the British Government, not the Executive, but that cannot be an excuse for the complete abdication of responsibility, which is what we have seen from the Executive.

Mrs Erskine: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: Not yet, but I will at some point.

Let me offer this as an example. Trump and Netanyahu began bombing Iran on 28 February. Prices spiked immediately, and, as I said, they fed through to forecourts and kerosene suppliers immediately. When was the first official statement from the Executive Office? It was Friday week ago, on 10 April. The First Minister and deputy First Minister's statement, which called on the UK Government to take action, said that:

They have a brass neck. It took the First Minister and the deputy First Minister more than five weeks to say a thing at the centre of devolved government. They are hardly well placed to talk about being decisive and acting without delay. To repeat, it is not wrong for the Executive to say that they want and need more help from the UK Government; in fact, it is a core part of devolved government. That is how the highly centralised UK state, which, by the way, I obviously aspire not to be a part of, is set up, whether we like it or not. However, that does not stop the Executive devoting maximum resource to planning their response. This is a point that I will come back to: if you believe that the UK Government are inept or incompetent or simply do not prioritise the people of the North — we in the SDLP agree with that — that does not exempt the Executive from doing their work; it makes it more important that they do their work. It makes it more important that they speak with one voice. It makes it more important that they take responsibility, not less. If the Labour Government and Starmer — a master of not taking responsibility, as we have found out in recent days — are not taking responsibility for the people of Northern Ireland, the people in the Assembly and the Executive had better damn well do so.

Where were the urgent summits with consumer groups, trade unions, agriculture and business representative bodies? Where are the communications with petrol wholesalers and retailers to warn against profiteering? Perhaps they happened, but I did not see them. We were not told about them. There were not reams of statements in the House about it. Where was the urgency in designing and announcing a scheme to spend the £17 million, which, I agree, is not enough, to support families with home heating oil? The priority for the main Executive parties was not taking responsibility or leading; it was ensuring that someone else got the blame for not acting.

Do not get me wrong: the UK Government needed to be pressurised, but the Executive needed to take responsibility rather than simply shifting blame. Rather than working together for the common good, as the Pledge of Office requires of them and all of us, and taking collective responsibility for helping people, the DUP was clear about where blame lay for the lack of help: it was the Shinners. Of course, Sinn Féin was equally clear that it was the Brits.

Mrs Erskine: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: Is it any wonder that so many of our people hold our devolved politics in such contempt when, at a time of real crisis in their lives, their locally devolved elected Government waste weeks in pointless rows and blame shifting, rather than working together to help them?

I will give way briefly.

Mrs Erskine: We have had the leader of the Opposition talking now for nearly seven minutes and gaslighting the public. The Communities Minister delivered last week a support package for the hardest-pressed homes — 70% of homes — in Northern Ireland.

Mr O'Toole: It is an intervention, not a speech.

We welcome the Communities Minister's making progress. I am about to come on to that. It took more than a month. That is not gaslighting; it is holding the Executive to account.

Take some responsibility. You have executive power. You ask people to vote for you. Your two parties ask people to vote for them. Do not shirk responsibility. We are the Opposition; it is our job to hold you to account.

Of course, the leaderless, rudderless UK Government made matters worse with their slow response and contradictory utterances. It was utterly unhelpful for the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State to put out information that was unhelpful and contradictory. To be absolutely clear, there are Ministers and parties here who are determined to shift responsibility —.

Mrs Erskine: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will not get any more time, so I am afraid that I cannot take loads of interventions. I am normally generous.

They are determined to shift responsibility for anything and everything on to a hapless and failing UK Government.
Bad decisions or no decisions do not absolve London or the Executive from blame for doing nothing. As I said, they make it even more important that there is strong local leadership.

As I said to Deborah Erskine — I should have welcomed her back to the Chamber in slightly less tense circumstances than this; I hope that she and her baby are well — it is welcome that the Executive made a commitment to match-fund the original allocation of the scheme that was announced last week. It begs the question of why it was not announced weeks ago. That is what this is all about. Why was it not announced weeks ago? If the Executive can find £19 million to match-fund the home heating oil scheme, why could they not find a smaller amount to help the charities failed by the local growth fund? Again, that is connected to the irresponsibility of the UK Government.

More broadly, it illustrates a key point, one that we keep returning to about our politics: if Ministers act with shared purpose and take responsibility, they can get things done. I do not criticise the Executive for making that announcement; I do not say that they have limitless power or limitless finances. I say, "Take responsibility". People sent us here — they sent the two big parties in particular — to lead in government. Take responsibility, collectively. Do not simply profit from having Punch and Judy fights with each other and shifting blame, meaning that the public are gaslit — I use a word that was used before. The lack of responsibility-taking is absolutely shameful.

It does not have to be like this. At a time when the public are struggling, it behoves all of us to take responsibility locally, even if the UK Government are not delivering — especially if the UK Government are not delivering. We need to show people not only that these institutions can work but that politics can work. There are dark actors on this island and in this society who are trying to turn people away from democratic politics. Those of us who believe in democracy, power-sharing and the institutions need to prove that they can work. I say this to the public: they can work; do not lose hope. It behoves all of us to take responsibility —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up.

Mr O'Toole: — rather than shift blame.

Mr Tennyson: I beg to move the following amendment:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): You will have 10 minutes to propose the amendment and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes. Please open the debate on the amendment.

Mr Tennyson: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. There is no doubt that households, businesses, farmers, hauliers, domiciliary care workers and many others in our society are working themselves to the bone and are under enormous pressure as a direct consequence of Donald Trump's illegal war in Iran — a war that was foolishly cheerled by many Members. I agree with the leader of the Opposition that the response from the top of the Executive at the outbreak of that crisis was confused, slow and beset by bickering, point-scoring, blame shifting and obfuscation. There was a complete absence of the leadership that workers, families and businesses needed and demanded.

We had the bizarre spectacle of the Communities Minister, whilst in Washington DC clinking glasses with Donald Trump and his cronies, blaming the Sinn Féin Economy Minister for not delivering the scheme on home heating oil and then later back-pedalling and accepting that it was the responsibility of his Department. The response has been confused and slow and has done little to bestow any confidence in the public about the DUP and Sinn Féin's ability to deliver in times of crisis.

Ms Sheerin: I thank the Member for giving way. At the outset, you referred to "bickering", and then you went on to talk about the DUP and Sinn Féin, while correctly articulating that the Communities Minister made an inaccurate claim about a Sinn Féin Minister and had to backtrack. Do you accept that that framing and that narrative are unhelpful when we acknowledge where the problems lie and that it would be better if we worked together rather than tried to point-score?

Mr Tennyson: I watched quite a lot of Members from both parties pointing fingers across the Chamber last week in the absence of any clarity on a scheme, so I stand over my assertion. We still have no clarity on how £81 million in annually managed expenditure (AME) money will be distributed to support people with their energy bills. The response from the Department for Communities and the Department for the Economy has been far too slow.

The amendment seeks to acknowledge that, since the SDLP motion was laid, important progress has been made. I recognise the statement that was issued belatedly by the First Minister and deputy First Minister last week and the progress that was made belatedly by the Communities Minister in designing a scheme and bringing it to the Executive to seek agreement. It is significant and welcome that, even in the absence of action from the UK Government and even with the financial constraints that the Executive face, agreement was found on a scheme that will support 340,000 households that earn less than £30,000 and rely on home heating oil.

It is important to stress that the Executive do not have unlimited financial or fiscal power and that the UK Government should and could step up to deliver a cut in fuel duty, make changes to VAT, support people with their energy bills and extend the windfall taxes on big oil and gas companies, which are gouging and profiting off the backs of our struggling constituents. It is not only big oil and gas companies that are having a time of it at the moment. The Treasury is experiencing a windfall from increased tax revenues, and that cannot be forgotten. Whilst the UK Government and Keir Starmer are weak and distracted by their disgraceful handling of the Peter Mandelson affair, our constituents are being left to suffer and are struggling.

We also cannot divorce this conversation from the conversation about fair funding for public services in Northern Ireland. I am sick, sore and tired of my constituents, who pay their National Insurance and tax and who, according to the Nevin Economic Research Institute (NERI), pay a greater proportion of tax than people in other parts of the UK for the quality of services that they get, being told that their representatives are simply going to London with a begging bowl when we know that Scotland and Wales receive considerably more funding, way above their level of need, than we do in this part of the UK. That inequality was acknowledged by the Tory Government and needs to be rectified by the Labour Government. It would be a sad indictment if Hilary Benn, Rachel Reeves and Keir Starmer presided over underfunding of our public services that even the Tories conceded was unacceptable and should not continue.

That is where I must diverge from the leader of the Opposition, because I think that it is right that parties take responsibility. In 2024, the leader of the Opposition's party stood on a manifesto that told the people of Northern Ireland that SDLP MPs are best placed to deliver change because they will have the strongest relationship with a new Labour Government. That party also said to voters in its manifesto, "Just imagine what we could do with a Labour Government who understand this place and listen to our MPs". Well, how the leader of the Opposition's tune has changed, and I would welcome his party speaking with one united voice, along with every other party in the Chamber, for the kind of intervention from the Labour Government that the people whom we represent deserve.

This is not just about — [Interruption.]

This is not just about — [Interruption.]

The Members should cease their chuntering so that I can continue. This is not just about today's crisis; it is about how we make progress to insulate families from future shocks. It is about looking beyond our own narrow borders towards the EU to look at how, in a customs union and with closer alignment with the single market, the UK will have a stronger economy that will strengthen the UK Government's hands to support people through this crisis. It is about rejecting the culture war nonsense that we have heard in the Chamber. Members have risen to their feet and said, "Oh, the rising energy bills are nothing to do with Trump's illegal war. It is because of that woke renewable nonsense", but we all know that the only way to cut bills, protect our environment and meet our climate commitments is by accelerating our transition to renewable energy so that our constituents are no longer susceptible to the roller coaster of fossil fuel prices and are no longer at the behest of global dictators when it comes to setting the price of their energy bills.

Therefore, I ask Members to acknowledge that the initial response to this crisis fell far short of what is required and that greater leadership was required sooner to instil confidence among the public in Stormont and the Executive's ability to deliver, but they should also acknowledge that, in the absence of any action from the UK Government and in very difficult circumstances, parties have stepped up and put in place a vital support scheme for people. That is to be welcomed. I hope that all parties can coalesce around the amendment, which, as I say, recognises the shortcomings but is not shy in recognising where progress has been made.

Mr Gildernew: Before I get into my remarks, it is important that I remind Members why we are here today discussing this issue. We are here because of the actions of Donald Trump and his cronies. They have launched an unprovoked and illegal war in Iran. That illegal war is the sole cause of the energy crisis that is having a devastating impact on workers, families and businesses, including farm businesses, in the North and beyond. As long as the war continues, oil and gas will remain unaffordable, and I fear that they will remain unaffordable long after the war has finished.

We can all agree that people here are suffering, and we need to ensure that they receive the support that they need. The price of oil has more than doubled since the start of the war, with thousands of families unable to heat their home or put food on the table. Businesses are also suffering. We have seen the frustration of the many farmers and transport hauliers who have engaged in protests across the island. Simply put, large parts of our economy rely on oil and gas as an energy source, and the price of oil has now plunged the economy into crisis. That is a timely reminder of the risks associated with an over-reliance on a volatile commodity such as oil, the supply and distribution of which we have absolutely no control over. The crisis should serve as a call to action to decarbonise our economy and use renewable energy sources.

It is important that we recognise the actions that the Executive have taken to support people during the crisis, which is something that the SDLP motion fails to do. Just last week, the Executive announced a support package worth £36 million, which will be targeted at those who are most in need, including people with disabilities and lower-income working families.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr Gildernew: Yes. Go ahead.

Mr O'Toole: As we have said, we would like to see the support package be improved, but we welcome the fact that there has been an intervention. Our point is that the support package should have come more quickly. Owing to the way in which business deadlines work in the House, we could not have included that, because we had to submit the motion a fortnight ago. We are trying to change how the business deadlines work. I just wanted to provide clarification, however.

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

Mr Gildernew: I am glad that I allowed the Member an intervention, as it gave him a second opportunity to welcome the support package. It is a help to working families whose primary source of energy is home heating oil. With the announcement of that vital support package — I welcome the fact that the Minister for Communities has recognised that it is his Department that needs to deliver on it — we now need to make the application process as straightforward and seamless as possible so that the money is got out into the pockets of those who need it most.

We also need to acknowledge that the response of the British Government to the crisis has been hopelessly inadequate. So far, the British Government have provided the Executive with only £17 million of extra funding. That will not even touch the sides of what will be needed here. They have refused all calls to date to deliver real, substantial financial support, including cutting tax and fuel duty, which would have a massive impact. Instead, the British Government have prioritised building weapons of war over supporting the people who are most in need. Instead of standing up to the warmongers in the White House, they have put their military bases at the disposal of those who are causing the crisis that we are currently facing.

We, a chairde

, need to see a radically different approach from the British Government: one that moves away from austerity and from complicity in an illegal war towards supporting vulnerable households. I welcome the fact that the Executive are united in calling for that and that a letter that the First Minister and the deputy First Minister signed has been sent to the British Government. People here do not have the luxury of waiting any longer. They need support, and they need it now.

Mrs Erskine: Families are struggling to make ends meet. Businesses are fighting to stay afloat. Farmers, hauliers and those in construction are being squeezed from every direction. Around two thirds of our homes rely on home heating oil. When prices spike, as they have done dramatically, our constituents feel that immediately and severely. Those who work in essential sectors such as agriculture, haulage and construction are also being crippled by soaring costs and rising prices. Those are not optional industries. Rather, they are the backbone of our economy.

Although the motion criticises the Government's response, it is important to acknowledge fully how domestic policy choices are making matters worse. Excessive taxation on fuel, the cumulative cost of net zero policies and a clear lack of a cost-benefit analysis are all adding to the burden on working people. We must ensure that we do things in a balanced, affordable and realistic way.

Imposing additional costs on families and businesses without transparency or justification is not the right approach. We have seen how those rigid climate targets are impacting on major projects, including the A5, the A4 southern bypass and the A1. Many of those proposals, which have not been quantified, are being advanced under the current climate action plan. Families and businesses are being asked therefore to shoulder additional burdens without having clarity on what those costs will mean or what the return will be.

It has been the DUP that has consistently called for practical and immediate measures. We need to see a reduction in fuel duty to ease the pressure at the pumps. We need VAT on home heating oil to be removed, at least temporarily, while the markets remain volatile. We need a serious and transparent assessment of the net zero policies. It is interesting to see that those in the Chamber who have called for that support have short memories, because, just last week, the SDLP, Sinn Féin, Alliance and, regrettably, the UUP all lined up to press ahead with a blank cheque instead of rightly carrying out cost checks on net zero targets.

Many fiscal levers to ensure that homes — all homes — see support remain at Westminster. The SDLP, however, has got it wrong again. The support from the Executive is not "non-existent". Our Communities Minister has stepped up to support those homes that are most pressed. The Communities Minister took on that work to get support out the door. He has done that consistently, even when he was Economy Minister in 2022. Some people did not have their listening ears on in the Chamber yesterday during questions to the Minister for Communities, so, I repeat: the reason that it took a month was because the Minister wanted to get a plan together that supported not only those who are on benefits but working people and to test the options that were available to him and the Executive. While others talk a good talk, the DUP steps up and delivers.

Let us not pretend, however, that regional interventions alone will solve the problem of scale. At Westminster, our DUP MPs have been clear that, when global prices rise, we need to see government policy that makes the decisions to sort out the excessive taxation. People do not want warm words or political point-scoring. Hitting out at the DUP here, when it is the DUP that is delivering in the Executive and speaking out on the issue at Westminster, is nothing more than opportunistic party political point-scoring.

The DUP will continue to stand up for a fair and balanced approach to safeguarding household finances, supporting our key industries and ensuring that our working people are not left to carry the burden alone. We will continue our call at Westminster for action to support each household in Northern Ireland. It is time to cut the fuel duty and —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up.

Mrs Erskine: — remove VAT from home heating oil.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Deborah Erskine. No, I do not. [Laughter.]

Mrs Erskine: I will go again.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Diana Armstrong.

Ms D Armstrong: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. We represent the same constituency, but we are slightly different in some ways. However, that is what people like, and that is what people elect us for. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and thank you, Deborah, for giving way.

There is no doubt that workers, families and business owners right across Northern Ireland face real and immediate concerns and pressures as a result of the rising living costs. While we have seen some easing in the home heating oil prices, those costs remain at over £900 for 900 litres, far above pre-March levels, and any downward movement is simply not happening quickly enough. That reality is putting severe pressure on household budgets and on the viability of many small and medium-sized businesses.

There is no question that the ongoing instability in the Middle East is exacerbating an already fragile situation. Global events do not occur in isolation, as we saw following Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022. International conflict quickly translates into higher prices at home. Disruption in the Strait of Hormuz has again exposed how vulnerable our fuel supply chains are, with many people now restricting journeys to absolute essentials because of escalating costs. However, the debate must remain focused on the practical impacts for our constituents. We do not believe that it is helpful for the Assembly to seek to adjudicate on the legality of international conflicts. What is beyond dispute is that global instability has direct consequences for households, and it is those consequences that demand our attention today.

The Ulster Unionist Party is focused on outcomes rather than political point-scoring. The reality is that the primary levers of taxation and fiscal policy lie with the UK Government, and it is right that Westminster is called upon to act decisively. Measures such as temporary fuel relief, duty reductions, windfall taxes, energy drives and targeted cost-of-living support are clearly matters for the Chancellor. That said, where devolved powers exist, they must be exercised responsibly and without delay. The Executive simply cannot pass the blame elsewhere. We have heard blame being apportioned widely here this morning in the Chamber. The delayed response from the Minister for Communities and the Minister for the Economy has unquestionably added to the pressures facing local households and businesses, particularly in relation to support for those who are reliant on heating oil.

The UUP acknowledges that the home heating oil scheme is welcome, but the delay in its implementation is surely indicative of the pace at which decisions are made in this place. We support the call for rural fuel duty relief as a time-limited measure to ease immediate pressures, especially for farmers who are facing spiralling fuel and fertiliser costs. Failure to act risks reduced agricultural output, higher food prices and long-term threats to food security.

At a time of severe financial constraint, Ministers should work collectively to identify savings, establish emergency support where necessary and focus on those who are under the greatest strain, including workers in domiciliary care who continue to do essential work while facing significantly higher travel costs.

Finally, I welcome the UK Government's action, including the extension of the British industrial competitiveness scheme to Northern Ireland and targeted payments for lower-income households. Those demonstrate that coordinated action between Westminster and Stormont can deliver real relief.

I will finish with the position of the Ulster Unionist Party on the motion and the amendment. Although we agree with 90% of the motion, we cannot support a finger-pointing exercise in this place and one that underpins the illegality of a war that we are not involved in.

Mrs Dillon: Workers, families and businesses are under real pressure —. Actually, I will start by saying that I hope that the Member for South Belfast knows what he was trying to say because I have no idea what he was trying to say. In one part of the speech, he said that the Executive have everything that they need to deliver, but they need the British Government, but why are they writing to the British Government, why are they asking the British Government, the British Government need to give it to them. I am completely confused. I have never heard so many contradictions in one speech in all my life, and, coming from you, in this place, that is saying something.

People are feeling the pressure every day in their homes, their workplaces and their communities, but we need to be honest in the debate about where the responsibility actually lies. The reality is that the key financial and taxation powers needed to respond to the crisis sit with the British Government. That is the truth. You always talk about honesty and transparency, so let us have a bit of it.

When we talk about the crisis, we need to talk about real people. Domiciliary care workers, who are mentioned in the motion, are a clear example. Those workers are going from home to home in large, rural areas, such as the area that I represent of Mid Ulster, looking after some of our most vulnerable people. They want to do the job. They care about the people whom they look after, and they care about their families. However, they have their own families, and they have bills to pay, and the price of fuel means that it costs money for them to go to work. They were already struggling, and they are nowhere near close to being properly compensated for their mileage. That is not sustainable, and it is not fair. The same applies to other healthcare workers, childcare workers and people who have already given so much and are now being hit hardest by the rising costs. They cannot just absorb the increases; they are already stretched to their very limit.

The Executive have stepped in where they can. The support package will help many low-income households, but we need to be straight about it: that is not funding that we can easily spare. They did not pull it out of their sleeve, Matthew. It had to come from somewhere. It had to come from Departments that also have rising costs — just to be clear about that. It comes at a time when public services are already under pressure because of ongoing underfunding from the British Government. We are making decisions to target that support towards those who need it most, but it will not reach everyone. There are many workers and families just above that threshold who are struggling just as much, but they will get no support. That is why further action from the British Government is essential. While people here are struggling to heat their homes, to get to work and to make ends meet, the British Government have made their priorities clear.

I have to take issue with the point that the war is nothing to do with us and that we should not comment on it. The British Government are choosing to build up their war machine and to support others to make war above investing in people, communities and public services here. They have chosen to focus their resources on unjust wars while workers, families and essential services are left under pressure. They are quite happy to take our taxes — our hard-working people's money — to do that, but will not allow us to have any say in the decision on how that is spent.

The British Government are more than happy to take our hard-earned taxes while offering no support to people, at a time when illegal wars are creating a cost-of-living crisis for people here. They have the power to implement fuel duty relief and they have the money to put in place a meaningful support package. As was mentioned, some of that money comes from the increased revenue that they are getting because of the rising cost of fuel.

Miss Hargey: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Dillon: Yes.

Miss Hargey: The point you raise is a good one, considering that recent figures have shown that energy companies are making $30 million an hour. So far, they have made $23 billion from what they call a "war windfall", which is a disgusting statement in itself, yet the British Government still refuse to tax those profits. That is where the focus needs to be, and that is where the levers are to do it.

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

Mrs Dillon: I absolutely agree with the Member and thank her for that information.

Businesses, farmers, families and workers across our society are being impacted on, but the British Government are making a clear political choice not to prioritise people. The answer that we hear from some in the Chamber and many in the media is that we should raise revenue to alleviate the pressures on families here by increasing rates and student fees and introducing water charges. The answer to serious financial pressure on families and workers here is to come up with amazing and wonderful ideas to increase their financial burden. Nobody in their right mind would support that, and we certainly will not be supporting revenue-raising measures that put more pressure on people who are already at breaking point across our constituencies and communities. We will continue to do what we can, but how many times do we need to find ourselves in this position, dealing with the consequences of decisions that are taken elsewhere without having the power to respond properly?

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Dillon: Sorry, I cannot.

That is the situation that we are in again. If we had the powers, we could act differently. We could respond more quickly and we could target support towards the people who need it. We could make decisions based on what is best for the people here. That is why the conversation about the future of Ireland matters.

Ms Sheerin: It is important that we are having a conversation about an issue that is affecting all our constituents and every community across the North. As others have outlined, however, it is regrettable that the motion takes the approach that it does, mixing up the problem with the solution. Like others, I was confused by the statements that were made by the Member for South Belfast at the beginning of the debate. It is regrettable that the desire to be party political has eclipsed the objective to help the people whom we all represent.

This conversation goes to the very heart of why I got involved in politics and why I am a political activist. This is a crisis not of our making, and whilst we may wish that things were different — it is my life's work to make things different for us all here — we do not have the powers in this place to effect the change that we would like to. War is a political choice, and helping people is a political choice. We talk often about the Big C, but colonialism and capitalism are the two cancers that discriminate. They discriminate against working people and the people who suffer deprivation most in society. We have America and Israel illegally invading Iran and killing innocent people across the world, and we have working people here in Ireland suffering directly as a result.

It is a pity that our message to the British Government, who, at this time, are planning to increase their defence spending and increase the millions and billions of funds that they put into their war machine, instead of being a clear and united voice coming from every party in the Chamber and every representative of the people of the North of Ireland saying that they need to act decisively, now, to undo some of the damage that they have done through the wars in which they have been complicit, is a completely mixed message from a party that, not so long ago, was in the Executive. Whilst the Member correctly articulated that it is the UK Government, as he calls them, who have the power to change things here and are at fault for the funding situation that we find ourselves in, he used the same old line: "Sinn Féin wants to blame the Brits".

Mr O'Toole: I thank the Member for giving way. Is it legitimate that we are the official Opposition? Is it legitimate that there is an accountability mechanism on the Executive? That is a simple question. I know that it is different in Dublin and in London, and we obviously agree on a constitutional outcome. Is it legitimate that there is an official Opposition holding the Executive to account?

Ms Sheerin: I absolutely think that it is legitimate, and I welcome your presence here. My problem is that you are completely mixing the message. You have absolutely every right to call us out on things that we do not do right. Nobody in any Executive party would suggest that everything that is done here in the North is perfect. It is a five-party coalition of people who are diametrically opposed in ideology. There will be issues that we do not agree on, and that is right and proper. That is a normality of political systems across the world. My frustration is that we agree on an awful lot. I made that point earlier to the deputy leader of the Alliance Party. We are aligned on a lot of these issues. We share a position. We disagree with the genocide in Gaza. We disagree with the murder and killing of innocents. We disagree with the fact that the Minister for Communities was over clinking glasses with the very people who have caused this crisis and was then throwing shots at one of our Ministers, who was trying to deliver a package at the same time.

Instead of having tit-for-tat and a narrative of "Oh, they can't agree" — we do not agree on lots of things — we should all be trying to work together to serve the people whom we all represent. I wish that, instead of being party political, bickering and trying to point fingers and blame, we could all come out of here with one, united message, which is that the British Government have the funds to help the people whom we all represent. They have the power to temporarily cut fuel duty. They have the power to support people on the ground: the domiciliary care workers, the upland farmers, the people on our roads and the people who deliver our food, who are the people whom we are all here to serve. I would like to see us all doing that, united, instead of getting into the weeds and being unable to resist the opportunity to take a potshot where it is completely unnecessary. We would all come out of here an awful lot better if we spoke with one, united voice and called collectively on the British Government to act now. They have the power to do so, and we should demand that they do.

Mr Gaston: Opposition day can always bring out the best in the Executive. Indeed, we have already seen the Executive parties knocking lumps out of one another. What the motion also does is expose the SDLP. One could be forgiven for forgetting that the SDLP at Westminster sits on the Back Benches with the Labour Government. The Labour Government can take action today to do something about the cost of living. The SDLP motion begins with a false premise and builds an entire argument on it. To suggest that the pressures facing families and businesses are the result only of the conflict in the Middle East, however one wishes to define it, is simply wrong.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: I am happy to.

Mr O'Toole: He has just said that it is not the result of the conflict. You can go on the Consumer Council website and track when prices of kerosene — home heating oil — spiked. You can look at countless websites that show what happened to the price of Brent crude. Does he not accept that oil prices spiked because of the bombing of Iran?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): You have an extra minute, Mr Gaston.

Mr Gaston: I accept that it has led to an increase in the price and in the cost of living, but the cost-of-living crisis did not begin only a month ago. Fuel prices have risen since the conflict began, but that does not change the underlying reality that over 50% of the price of every tank of fuel is not driven up by Donald Trump; it is the result of the tax system, which is out of touch with reality and urgently needs to be revised. Fuel duty and VAT together make up the majority of what people pay at the pump. Crucially, VAT is charged as a percentage, so, every time the price of fuel goes up, the tax also rises. Families and businesses pay more, and, without lifting a finger, the Treasury takes more.

Motorists, farmers and even homeowners have been taken for granted for far too long. They have carried a grossly unfair share of the national tax burden, and, as the protests of last week showed, growing numbers of people throughout Northern Ireland have had enough.

The crisis in the Middle East and the resultant rise in fuel prices has not only increased costs for ordinary people; it has automatically increased VAT receipts for the Government. It is one of the few taxes that rise precisely when people are under the greatest pressure, and yet there is no automatic relief in return. The motion would be far better if, instead of having a pop at Donald Trump, it called for His Majesty's Government to do something concrete about the issue. After all, the SDLP sits on the government Benches.

One obvious step would be a reduction in VAT on fuel, giving back to motorists at least some of what the Treasury is now taking in. The reality is that reducing fares on public transport is of little use to people living outside urban areas. I have a member of staff who lives fewer than 30 miles away from this Building. If he wants to come into the office for 9.00 am, he has to leave home before 7.00 am if he is to depend on public transport to get to work. The reality for many is that the car is not one option among many; it is the only practical option. If the Assembly is serious about helping workers and businesses, it will stop blaming events overseas that we can do absolutely nothing about and start demanding that the Government, who take more when prices rise, finally give something back.

We saw the protests last week. I believe that they will grow. They not just been about what has happened in the Middle East. Look at the carbon taxes inflicted by this place. We say, "Oh, we can't do anything about it", but we can. The decisions that we take in this Building, chasing crazy net zero policies, all add to the cost and the burden and increase the cost of living.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. Does he agree that he would be better focusing on the likes of Donald Trump and events overseas? It is a war, and it is increasingly evident that it is about making money. Maybe the Member would be better to focus on that, rather than on things that are trying to be implemented in order to protect life, save lives and protect our futures.

Mr Gaston: I will take no lectures on war from Sinn Féin, given its past, whom it associates itself with and whom it still glorifies to this day.

Nobody in this Building can do anything about what Donald Trump thinks or what he is doing in Iran, but we can do something when it comes to the policies that we support in this place. We can also lobby the British Government to take immediate action to reduce the cost-of-living burden that is affecting everybody in Northern Ireland.

Mr Carroll: Everywhere we look, it is clear that most people are struggling to make ends meet. While there is no doubt that Trump's war on Iran has played a major part in driving up prices — let us not forget that the war has also led to destruction and to the killing of thousands of Iranians — most of the deep cost-of-living problems predate the war. The war has just exacerbated them. Take the fact that people have been forced to be on a waiting list for years to get a hip replacement or some other medical procedure. That is a cost-of-living problem that has direct financial and health impacts on people. We heard yesterday that 6,000 people had died in the past 10 years while waiting in emergency departments. That is because they are in the wrong place, are not getting treatment or are not being seen to by our healthcare system. Again, there has been no action from the Executive on that.

The cost of food has increased exponentially. People can do without many things in life, such as computers or phones, but they cannot do without the essentials. They cannot do without food. People are paying through the nose when they go to supermarkets. DAERA's food strategy framework action plan from last year found that nine out of 10 consumers were worried about the price of food. The result of that is pretty clear. People will buy less healthy foods and will instead buy more processed foods. In any supermarket, the more processed foods are cheaper. I am not judging people, but the reality is that that is what people will be forced to do in order to feed their family.

What will be the result of people buying more processed foods? More people will be forced to go to the dentist, if they can even get access to a dentist, given the crisis in dental care as well. To get treatment, they will be forced to fork out hundreds, if not thousands, of extra pounds to a dentist. More and more people will be eating sugary foods and processed foods, and they will be unable to access to a dentist. They will have rotten teeth or get oral cancer. That is just one small example of how the cost-of-living crisis will have a direct impact on the health of people in my constituency and across the North.

Parents already skip meals. At least 41% of them have reported cutting back on or skipping meals in order to feed their children. Of course, any parent would do that. That will go in only one direction. Given the increase in the cost of food, the number of parents skipping meals will rocket. The Executive are not talking about that. They are still ruling out capping the price of food. Although the deputy leader of the Alliance Party referred to it in passing, the motion makes no mention of the profit bonanza that private companies are experiencing whilst people are being ripped off. Take Tesco, for example. It has taken a hit because of the war on Iran and has adjusted its forecast, but it is still projected to make £3 billion in profit in the coming year. If you ask me and most people, that is completely insulting and disgusting.

The top 20 energy companies up until August 2024 made £557 billion in profit. That was almost two years ago, so the figure will obviously have increased now. Energy companies are increasing their prices, forcing people to look at their meter and turn down their thermostat a bit, because they cannot afford to pay their energy bills. What is the result of that? People are cold and are having health problems, yet energy companies are making a huge fortune on the back of everybody but especially on the back of poor and vulnerable people. There needs to be a windfall tax on energy companies, but I have heard nothing about that from the Executive parties. If they agree to do that, brilliant, but I have not heard the Executive articulate at all that they will do that, so I do not know whether they are for it or not.

I agree with some of what the Sinn Féin Members said. There was, however, also a lot of defensiveness from them. I suppose that it is their job to defend their Executive, but, deep down, they know that people consider the Executive to be completely failing them on multiple fronts, especially on the cost-of-living crisis. They have failed to protect people. They have failed to act for people. We know that the British Government have failed people, but Sinn Féin and the other Executive parties have done their bidding by implementing their ridiculous Budgets, which have resulted in people's services being cut in real terms in real time.

People may ask what can the Executive do. They could implement rent controls, but all Executive parties have voted against those consistently. They could stop giving hundreds of millions of pounds to private landlords. They could scrap industrial derating for big companies. If people in the South —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up.

I call David Honeyford to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. You have up to five minutes.

Mr Honeyford: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Energy is the basis of our economy. It underlies absolutely everything, and literally everything is built on it. The cost of everything is affected by it. I talk a lot about energy in this place, including in the Committee, and I enjoy doing so. The cost-of-living crisis is hurting people, and energy spikes have been referenced. Timothy mentioned that the crisis did not happen just as a result of this war: no, it happened the last time that there was a war as well, when Russia invaded Ukraine. In one year, the UK Government spent £60 billion subsidising energy costs for ordinary people. That is £60 billion that the taxpayer now has to pay back, so we need to look at this in the round. Inflation has risen dramatically in that time. That drives up food costs, and it drives up everything that people buy. Inflation also drives up interest rates, which puts mortgages higher and pushes rents higher. It leaves everybody with less money in their pocket to enjoy on themselves.

In the debate, there has been quite a bit of agreement across the House on the need to do something to help. One group that has not been mentioned is our local businesses and the jobs that they provide. We need to make sure that businesses, especially manufacturing and advanced manufacturing businesses, are not priced out as their margins disappear. Care workers who drive to work are absorbing the costs, and that was never in their contracts. They were already hurting from that before the spike in fuel costs made it worse. Those are people in our constituencies who are struggling every day of the week, and they are the people whom we need to champion.

Last week, as has been referenced a few times, we had a debate on the costs of net zero. That is a complete distraction from Trump's war, which has spiked oil prices. The answer to that was to double down on oil and gas and to, basically, give us more of the same and deliver more of that. A report from the University of Oxford showed that, if we were to drill for oil in the North Sea, there would be a benefit to the consumer of, off the top of my head, £14 or £16. That is £16, and a transition to renewables would bring a benefit of £500 a household in the UK. We have to stop the dependency on oil and gas, because the only people who are laughing on their way to the bank are the oil companies.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr Honeyford: Absolutely.

Mr O'Toole: I touched on this in my remarks, and the Member talks a lot about this. Fair play to him for that. We have been criticised for talking about the Executive's responsibilities as well as the UK Government's. Will he agree that the Executive need to make much more progress on energy? For example, we do not have an energy support scheme for such things as heat pumps.

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

Mr Honeyford: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Thank you for the intervention. I absolutely agree. I have called so many times for a master plan for energy. We need a plan so that policy is not from little bits from here, there and everywhere but is driven and plan-led rather than it being left to developers to come up with each individual part of it. It needs to be driven from the Department to transition us to renewables. It needs to be done on an all-island basis. We need a plan here, but we cannot provide an energy solution just in Northern Ireland. We have to work with the South to deliver that. I absolutely agree.

Gerry talked about the profits, and I want to talk exactly on that. There has to be a windfall tax. Last week, BP reported that it made an additional $340 million profit for every one dollar that a barrel of oil went up in price. Just think of the value of that. A barrel was around $60 two months ago. It has been steadily over $100. It has been $120 at a point in time.

That is the value of the profit, and that is one energy company.

People talk about Norway as the example for digging. Norway has a wealth fund of about $1·9 trillion that it uses to support its people. Norway has 95% renewable energy, with bills that are half of what our people pay. "Dig, baby dig", which we hear constantly, is a perverse argument. There is no benefit to people other than price spikes.

We have called repeatedly for a windfall tax. Sorcha has called repeatedly for exactly that at Westminster. If a company is making money, and you sell the assets off to a private company, if you dig more, the company makes more. At $340 million for every dollar, that money needs to be taken from the rich and the companies that are profiteering and given to ordinary people here to allow them to get on with their daily lives. We need to reduce the costs for people and help people. The focus of the Chamber must absolutely be on ordinary people and making sure that we do our best for them.

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

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and thank you to everyone across the House who contributed to the debate. It is clear from your contributions that the impact of the cost-of-living crisis is felt in every constituency. That is no surprise, given that we have talked for years about the cost-of-living crisis. It did not happen a couple of months ago; it has been going on and on and on for quite some time, and we have heard all about it across the airwaves.

As everyone who spoke said, it has been characterised by difficult, dire and, in some cases, harrowing circumstances for far too many people. Households, families and businesses feel those impacts, which have been relentless over the years. They have been constantly crushed by the burden of high bills, and there is absolutely no let up and no clear end in sight. Across all our constituencies, we hear the same stories. People are rationing their heating oil because they simply cannot afford to fill the tank. Parents are skipping dinners so that their children can eat. Small businesses are watching their energy bills soar, wondering how they can possibly keep their doors open.

In that context, the impact of the war in Iran has felt like another hammer blow to families, businesses etc that just cannot seem to afford to deal with it anymore. Since that illegal war began, the cost of oil, as Members outlined, has soared. Household budgets have been squeezed from every angle, and the price spikes in energy and essentials have threatened to push more and more families to food banks. The simple maths is that, for far too many families, while the cost of their outgoings is spiralling out of control, what is coming in every month is simply not matching up.

All the evidence suggests that the UK is likely to be hit particularly hard, with the biggest hit to growth amongst the advanced economies and the joint highest inflation in the G7 this year. Of course, here, at home, we know that Northern Ireland will be hit hardest of all for a number of reasons. Our heavy dependence on home heating oil leaves us much too exposed, our energy infrastructure leaves households extremely vulnerable to global price shocks and our lower average incomes leave people here with less financial resilience to begin with, with nearly half of adults having less than £1,500 in savings. Gerry Carroll spoke about processed food, and one in five households experienced food insecurity in 2024.

While households across the region have, no doubt, been spared some of the impacts, the places hardest hit are the poorest communities, places such as my city of Derry, where poverty rates are double those of other areas, where communities are fragile and employment options are more limited. The pain is not distributed evenly; it falls hardest on those who are closest to the edge, not least people in rural areas, those in domiciliary care, the elderly and the more vulnerable when faced with those challenges. The impact of the Iran conflict means that the people whom we represent are simply running out of options, and they need support.

Of course the UK Government need to act with greater urgency. Two things can be right at the same time. The UK Government have a great deal of responsibility here, but so do the Executive. I agree with Linda Dillon, Deirdre Hargey and others across the House that the profiteering on the backs of the poor is disgusting and that of course we should consider a windfall tax to meet the needs of those who are most in need.

Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way?

Ms McLaughlin: No one in my party agrees with that profiteering, and nobody is absolving Britain of any responsibility. I can assure you, Eóin Tennyson, that, wherever they sit, our MPs, Colum Eastwood and Claire Hanna, will continue to press the case with Westminster and to work with parties across the Chamber. People deserve more than the politics of blame, and they need a better response than, "Blame it on the Brits". Emma, I have the greatest respect for you. I love your drive and your passion, but simply pointing the finger at London again and again is just not good enough. It has been a tired and tested method in this place. It might have been politically convenient in the past, but people see through it now; in fact, people are starting to realise exactly what it means to shift all the blame onto central government.

Ms Sheerin: Will the Member give way?

Ms McLaughlin: If I have time towards the end, Emma.

It is a deliberate move and a calculated step that risks gaslighting the public in an attempt to absolve the Executive of their responsibility.

As I said, two things can be right at the same time. In reality, the Executive also need to step up. The heating oil package of £100 for some households — I would probably argue with the figure of 70% of all households — is welcome. However, let us be honest: it does not come close to meeting the scale of need, and it only scratches the surface of what people are crying out for. Executive parties are failing to rise to the moment. Families are looking to the Executive — their Executive — for support and leadership, but the response has been found badly wanting.

I agree with David Honeyford that we have made little or no progress on energy — it is shocking — and we have made little or no progress on an anti-poverty strategy and on retrofitting our social housing. Those are things that the Executive should stand up and do. They are the practical things that Diana Armstrong talked about. It is about practical things. Responding at a time of crisis is a leadership action, but if, in day-to-day government, you cannot respond by delivering for the people who elected you to do so, you are also failing. Seeking election to the Assembly and entering government here are about taking responsibility, not shirking it. We therefore need to ask what more we can do.

Deborah Erskine, you must not have had your wee listening ears on today either, because our motion includes specific proposals on a range of areas that could make a difference to hard-pressed families, including measures such as the extension of rural fuel duty relief and steps to address the particular challenges faced in the more rural regions, such as the need to reduce public transport fares and to provide targeted support for the most affected industries. All those issues would be easier if the Executive agreed a multi-year Budget, which would allow us to plan strategically and collaboratively and to work together to support the things that matter to the people whom we all represent. Diana Armstrong made a really good point about practicality and solution-based working. That is what the motion is about. It is about solutions.

Our having to submit the motion two weeks ago, before there was a package here, did not allow us to acknowledge that fact. That has to be said, because it is another dysfunction of this place. It does not respect the position of the Opposition to make points as the urgency arises.

Finding solutions would be helped if more fiscal powers were devolved to the region. We have been calling for more fiscal powers for the region, but the Executive have so far failed to achieve that. In fact, I do not hear the Finance Minister talking about what financial powers he would like to be devolved to give him more responsibility. That is also a failure of government.

The challenges that families face should serve as a wake-up call, highlighting the need to tackle the more pervasive inequalities across society and to build a fairer economy that deals with the crisis at its roots. Ultimately, politics comes down to choices. The choices that the Executive face might be called difficult, but they are nothing compared with the hard choices that families in our constituencies experience every day — choices between heating and eating and choices about bills and other basics. Right now, too many of the people whom we represent feel that those choices are not being made by the Executive who are ducking them. Those choices are being ducked, and they cannot keep on finger-pointing while the rest of the fingers are pointing back at them. It feels like, while the British Government may have been uninterested, which they have been, the response from the Executive here has been nothing short of complacent. Honest to God, it is shocking to see how laid back our Executive have been during the current crisis. That is not good enough for the families and businesses in our communities. It needs to change, urgently and without further delay.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, please take your ease before we move on to the next item in the Order Paper.

Mr Durkan: I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. As an amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, Andrew Muir, will respond to the debate on behalf of the Minister of Justice.

Mark, please open the debate on the motion.

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

It is clear to anyone as they walk or drive around our cities and towns that the situation with scramblers, motorbikes and e-scooters has escalated beyond a public nuisance to a risk to life. Almost every week, I am contacted by constituents who have been terrified by near misses. They tell me of e-scooters weaving through pedestrians at speed on narrow footpaths. I am sure that many in the Chamber will reference the heart-stopping moment that a child on an e-scooter darts into traffic from behind or between parked cars. There is another dimension that we cannot ignore: the particular impact on blind and partially sighted people and those with limited mobility, who no longer feel safe when they are out walking. Motorists and pedestrians alike take their lives in their hands, as do those who use such vehicles.

The situation is perennial. It is starkest in the aftermath of Christmas during the darker evenings. With Christmas comes an annual explosion of e-scooters onto our streets, and we see children, often in dark clothing and without helmets or protective wear, taking chances on vehicles that they just about know how to operate. Parental responsibility has to be a part of any serious conversation on the issue. Parents and guardians should understand and be educated on what their children are using, where they are using it and the risks involved. Too often, the vehicles are treated like toys, when, in reality, they can cause serious injury or worse, and we have, sadly, seen lives lost on this island.

We see some reluctance here from Ministers to properly address or take responsibility for the issue. While that ping-pong, dither and delay goes on, the North falls further behind other jurisdictions on much-needed protections. I want to be clear that, when used responsibly and in the right setting, the vehicles offer a great, greener alternative to modern traffic, but the reality on our streets at the moment is far from that ideal.

In my constituency, we see it play out daily. I think particularly of the field in Linear Park in the Galliagh area where antisocial scrambler use has caused headaches and heartache for residents for years. What should be a safe, green space for families, joggers and dog walkers has too often been transformed into a high-speed track for scramblers. Residents bemoan noise late into the evening, reckless driving across shared spaces, muck bombing, damage to property and the intimidation that often comes with that. I have met the PSNI locally on the issue, and it is trying its best, but it is fighting an uphill battle against a tide of unregulated, high-powered vehicles. While enforcement powers exist, officers with whom I have engaged explain that it is nearly impossible and often extremely dangerous to make pursuit on foot and even more dangerous in a car, especially in built-up residential areas.

I acknowledge the amendment from the Ulster Unionist Party on expanding the use of drone teams and its view that that could help to monitor suspects from above and reduce the need for dangerous pursuits through housing estates, as well as easing pressure on an overstretched police service, and I look forward to hearing more about that proposal from the UUP.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: It is the DUP, Mark. It is a DUP amendment.

Mr Durkan: Then we are opposed to it. [Laughter.]

There is also a strong case for national standardisation. We clearly need safety standards, robust quality checks and mandatory registration at the point of sale. If every e-scooter sold met recognised standards and was linked to an owner, enforcement would be easier, accountability would improve, and unsafe products could be kept off the market. That is why legislative change matters. At the moment, we see the market being flooded with cheap vehicles purchased from sites such as AliExpress or SHEIN. Those products often bypass the safety protocols and regulations that we would expect and demand. That cannot continue. We need to crack down on manufacturers and online marketplaces. If the vehicles are being sold here or used here, they must meet clear safety requirements.

I appreciate that today's motion calls on the Justice Minister to strengthen police powers to seize vehicles and to expand pilot programmes across the North. There is a clear responsibility there. However, I acknowledge that there must be a collaborative effort with the Minister for Infrastructure. I have been raising the issue for well over five years, and, in that time, the response from DFI has been to monitor developments elsewhere. The Irish Government introduced e-scooter legislation two years ago. In England, pilot rental schemes have provided a framework for safe, licensed use on public roads. Meanwhile, the North, as usual, sits in something of a legislative vacuum. In February, Minister Kimmins advised me, via an answer to a question for written answer, that the issue of e-scooter use and enforcement had been raised by officials at the PSNI-led silver command meeting and that:

Where are those measures? The public have yet to see any evidence of them.

I referred earlier to tragic fatalities that have occurred, and I fear and feel that it is a matter of when, not if, a similar tragedy occurs here if we do not act swiftly.

We must also recognise the need for safer, designated recreational spaces for young people. If we want to reduce irresponsible use on streets and footpaths, we must provide proper alternatives. Local councils have a key role to play in identifying suitable sites, investing in facilities and working with communities to create spaces that are safe and supervised. We have seen some successful projects, and my party colleague in west Belfast, Councillor Paul Doherty, has been to the fore on the issue.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Member for giving way. On Good Friday, I was contacted by a constituent who was really concerned about the safety of youths in Newry who were scootering in and out of traffic on their e-scooters. Does he agree that the Minister for Infrastructure and the Minister of Justice need to step up and ensure that proper regulation, standards and safety laws are in place to protect people on e-scooters and pedestrians as well as drivers? Does he agree that, as per Paul Doherty's suggestion in west Belfast, there should be defined areas in which e-scooters and scramblers can be used safely?

Mr Durkan: I agree entirely with the Member and thank him for his intervention.

Of course, there is the other issue that I mentioned: parental responsibility. We need to educate not just young people, who generally, but not exclusively, are the ones who use such apparatus for nuisance purposes or end up causing a nuisance, but parents as well. We need a public awareness campaign for parents and children alike so that they understand that those vehicles are illegal for road use and are potentially lethal. The buck cannot stop there, however: we need legislative teeth that strengthen police powers to seize vehicles that are being used to terrorise communities. Lastly, as both of us have said, we need to expand the successful pilot programmes that have worked and shown positive results in schools and community hubs.

The time for monitoring is over. We need clear regulation, robust safety standards, cohesion from Ministers on the issue and the political will to reclaim our footpaths and parks in order to ensure the safety of all who use them.

Mr Kingston: I beg to move the following amendment:

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Brian. You will have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other contributors will have five minutes. Please open the debate on the amendment.

Mr Kingston: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. On behalf of the DUP, I rise to propose our amendment, which takes nothing away from the SDLP motion but adds some important action points that we hope all parties will support.

The misuse of small motorised vehicles in public spaces is a growing danger for everyone, including those who ride them. For over 25 years, communities such as mine in North Belfast have suffered from the inappropriate use of petrol scramblers and quad bikes on public roads, footpaths and grassed areas, where they cause immense damage and a danger to the public. Such vehicles are not permitted in parks, nor are they to be used on public roads unless they abide by the same regulations as any other motorised vehicle; that is, be registered with a number plate, have their road tax paid, be the subject of an insurance policy, and be approved as roadworthy, including working lights and indicators. Without those, they should only be used on private land, with the permission of the landowner.

In recent years, the invention and inappropriate use of electric scooters and scramblers has taken things to another level and greatly increased the danger that is posed. I expect that all Members have seen young people using those vehicles on roads and footpaths irresponsibly, including without lights on dark nights, posing a risk to themselves and to pedestrians and motorists. It is clear that legislation needs to keep up with that growing danger and that it is not currently doing so in Northern Ireland. Recently, I submitted an Assembly question for written answer to the Justice Minister, asking for her assessment of the adequacy of existing legislation in that regard. My colleagues Phillip Brett and David Brooks have submitted similar questions for written answer to the Minister, pointing in particular to clause 8 of the Crime and Policing Bill, as currently amended, in England and Wales.

In her reply, the Minister of Justice stated that her Department:

We now need to see action on that undertaking.

I have raised the matter many times with senior police officers. They have told me that they avoid engaging in high-speed chases with the drivers of such vehicles, owing to the danger involved to all, but they do seek to identify ownership and to seize vehicles that are being used inappropriately. Our amendment therefore highlights the benefit to the PSNI of providing it with resources for drone-equipped officers to gather evidence and identify ownership.

Our amendment also calls for the introduction of legislation that emulates clause 8 of the Crime and Policing Bill, as currently amended, in England and Wales. The clause removes the requirement for officers to issue a warning before seizing a vehicle that is being driven antisocially and illegally. Currently, when owners make a legal challenge to have seized vehicles returned, it often succeeds, resulting in more antisocial behaviour, owing to the inadequacy of current police powers in Northern Ireland. We should also all be concerned about the cost to the PSNI of storing seized vehicles that have not yet been destroyed. The Minister is aware of proposals to reduce the disposal time frames for seized vehicles. The question remains of whether she plans to explore similar legislation for Northern Ireland. We should move to allow the destruction of confiscated vehicles or to deprive the user of them permanently. Small fines are proven to be ineffective if users have such vehicles for involvement in crime, as some do.

Education initiatives, including the motorcycle action project (MAP) in west Belfast, have been undertaken across communities in Northern Ireland to inform the public about the use of scramblers and e-scooters. That successful work should continue and be encouraged. Many Members have no doubt attended road safety roadshows that are run in partnership with local policing and community safety partnerships (PCSPs) to make young people aware of road dangers. The use of scramblers and e-scooters should be incorporated into those already successful events.

We also cannot overlook the role of parental responsibility in ensuring that such vehicles, when purchased for their children, are used legally. There may be a lack of awareness among parents of the law surrounding e-scooters in particular: a lack of awareness about where they can be used, about who can use them and about how they should not be used in public spaces such as roads, footpaths and parks. Mandatory registration of the vehicles at the point of sale, as we propose, would also make it clear to owners and parents that they are not toys and, when misused, can have serious consequences. I commend our amendment to the House.

Ms Sheerin: I will speak to the motion as our party's justice spokesperson and, I have to confess at the outset, as a rural representative for Mid Ulster. When I was first presented with the motion, I had to ask what exactly e-scooters and scramblers are and what the difference between the two is, because, thankfully, we are not blighted with them in rural south Derry. I am grateful for that. I see Patsy, my Mid Ulster colleague, nodding.

I am familiar with Grace's law in the Twenty-six Counties, which came about following the tragic death of Grace Lynch as a result of scrambler misuse. As I did my research leading up to the debate and read up on the detail and on the harm, it quickly dawned on me that this is a significant problem, although perhaps not so much, as Mr Durkan outlined, in our area yet. It is, however, a significant problem in urban centres across the North.

Other Members mentioned that legislation is in place. Scrambler use on public roads and outside private land settings is already illegal, and there is work to be done on enforcement and on educating people. Legislation is a very important and necessary part of the puzzle when it comes to a lot of these things, but it has to be implemented properly. Oftentimes, through ignorance, we have heard references to parental responsibility and parents' awareness of what the law is and what the dangers are. We talk all the time in the Chamber about the different risks and challenges facing our young people today that might not have been problems when I was growing up many years ago. Parents are under pressure to buy those items for their kids at times and maybe do not understand the implications of them. Without judgement or scaremongering in any way, we need to have a conversation, and there needs to be an education piece, to ensure that the seriousness of those vehicles, the impact that they can have and the very serious and dangerous risk to life that they pose is all understood properly.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Will the Member give way?

Ms Sheerin: Yes.

Mr Muir: Does the Member agree that there is a wider issue about the safety of those vehicles? There is a particular risk of fire, depending on where they are purchased from. People need to have an understanding of their responsibilities in that regard.

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

Ms Sheerin: Thank you. I doubt that I will need it.

I thank the Minister for his intervention. He is 100% right. As has been outlined, people have to ensure the veracity of the dealer from which they buy those products and ensure that they are safe for use. As others have said, there are lots of examples of different sports and pursuits that people enjoy. When they do so safely and responsibly, there is not a problem; it is when they do not do so that we face difficulties.

We support the motion. We want to work with others to ensure the safety of young people, which has to be the priority for us all.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm today. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The next Member to be called in the debate after Question Time will be Peter McReynolds.

Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): The renewable electricity price guarantee (REPG) scheme policy intent was agreed by the Executive on 26 March 2026. My Department aims to introduce the required primary legislation for the REPG to the Assembly before the 2026 summer recess. The drafting process for the primary Bill is ongoing with the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC), and once the primary Bill is in place, subordinate legislation will be introduced to set out the detailed arrangements.

The REPG is a critical enabler for our net zero ambitions, and positions our region as a competitive, attractive destination for renewables investment. Delivering additional renewable electricity generation to meet the 80% target is, however, complex, demanding a careful balance between security of supply, affordability and legislative compliance. It therefore requires joined-up working across government and with our delivery partners to unlock the progress needed.

Mr Brett: First, I welcome the Minister back to the House and congratulate her on receiving Executive support for this important policy intent. It will have an important impact on our electricity generation.

On another support mechanism — the £81 million that will be made available by the UK Government — the Community Foundation Northern Ireland has met you and your officials to look at a voluntary opt-out for those of us who do not need the £30 support for our bills, which could be better used to support those more in need. The foundation wrote to you last week, seeking your support for such a scheme. Will you commit today to supporting that process to ensure that that £30 electricity support can go to those most in need rather than to all of us in the House, who do not need it?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. I have not yet seen the correspondence from the Community Foundation, but I certainly will consider what it has set out. The Member and others will be aware that we would not have designed a scheme with such a policy intent or method for being taken forward. There has been ongoing engagement with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) and Treasury to agree what has been put in place. We are on track to have that ready to deliver in July.

I am open to looking at what potential exists. I am not clear that there will be any, given the constraints around how Treasury manages annually managed expenditure and the rules around that. Certainly, I am willing to look at what the Community Foundation has set out to see what can be done in respect of the constraints that we have.

Mr Gildernew: Minister, how will the renewable electricity price guarantee scheme ensure that local communities benefit from renewable energy projects?

Dr Archibald: Our aim is to create a model that delivers real and credible benefits to local communities. That means that we need to get the detail right with suppliers, the Utility Regulator, developers and communities. Once the primary Bill is in place to give the appropriate powers, we will consult on the terms and conditions and set out exactly how discounts, rebates or payments will work and who will qualify. Those terms and conditions will then be given legal effect through the subordinate regulations that I mentioned in my first answer. The important point is that the direction of travel is clear: benefits for communities living near supported projects will be a central and visible feature of the scheme.

Dr Archibald: Rapid price increases in fuel costs are putting many households and businesses under unmanageable pressure. The situation requires urgent and meaningful intervention from the British Government, which, I am afraid, has been lacking to date.

My assessment of the situation is being informed daily through direct engagement with Executive colleagues, industry stakeholders and other sources of real-time intelligence. In addition, I asked my officials to undertake scenario planning in response to the evolving situation. They considered the potential impacts on our economy across three scenarios: the war ending relatively quickly, within a month or two; its continuing for six months through to the autumn; or its continuing for a year or longer.

Impacts were considered in relation to energy supply and prices and the wider economic effects on trade flows, supply chains, potential shortages and higher costs of certain commodities and general inflationary pressures. Information was drawn from analysis provided by the British and Irish Governments and key business representative organisations such as the CBI, the NI Chamber of Commerce and Logistics UK. I shared a summary of the results of that exercise with my Executive colleagues last week.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Minister for her answer. Will she detail what representation she has made to the UK Government on behalf of local businesses facing those rising costs? Will she continue to press for support that reflects Northern Ireland's reliance on road transport and logistics specifically?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. Since the outset of the crisis, I have been engaged with my counterparts in the British Government and in the Irish Government. I have had a number of meetings with my counterparts in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero in London in relation to support for consumers and understanding the general issues around security of supply and to make the case for support for households and businesses. In particular, there are sectors that are more impacted on than others. The Executive as a whole have also been making representations, including the First Minister and deputy First Minister directly to the Prime Minister. Obviously, the support that was made available for those who rely on home heating oil was welcome, but it was nowhere near enough. The Executive have tried to mitigate that to some degree with the limited ability that we have. I have also made the direct plea that we need to see the duties and taxes on fuel cut, and that obviously would have an impact on the sectors that the Member referred to.

Mr Kearney: Minister, in light of the current global insecurity, the horizon scanning that you have said has been undertaken by your officials and the consultations that have been carried out, can you outline specifically what supports are being developed to assist high-intensity energy manufacturing businesses?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. As he will be aware, the British Government published a consultation just last week on regulatory changes and delivery requirements to implement the British industrial competitiveness scheme. That scheme is designed to support industries in Britain only, reflecting the devolved nature of energy policy. On 16 April, the Secretary of State indicated that the British Government will provide equivalent funding for a scheme comparable to the British industrial competitiveness scheme, subject to business case approval and getting agreement around a comparable scheme. It is similar, I suppose, in some respects, to the discount in respect of the NI renewables obligation levy. We are continuing to work to understand exactly what can be done in that space. It does seem to represent a positive opportunity for businesses here in the North, and I raised with my counterparts the fact that businesses here were effectively being excluded because some of the levies that are being removed in Britain for businesses do not apply here. It is useful that we are now in a position to try to develop a scheme that will provide some sort of equivalent support, because businesses here have to be competitive. There was certainly a concern from energy-intensive businesses here that they were being disadvantaged by not being able to access the same level of support.

Mr Honeyford: Minister, you have talked about the assessment, but assessments are one thing, and businesses need action. Mr Kearney talked about high-intensity users, and transport and manufacturing are two sectors that have been mentioned. You have just talked about the UK Government bringing that support through for manufacturing and said that we will see it next year. It is a year ahead of schedule. What work is being done now, what will that look like in practice for our businesses and when are they likely to see that?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. As he will recognise, it was only announced last week that that would be extended in some form to here. We did not have prior notice that that was going to be the case, which, in some respects, is not surprising. It is not helpful, either, when trying to ensure that support schemes that are potentially being put in place can actually be rolled out and delivered here as quickly as possible. I have raised that in every engagement that I have had with the British Government since the start of this. If they are going to bring forward schemes, they need to engage with officials in my Department and in other Departments to ensure that what is being announced can be rolled out, while listening to the needs of business, communities and households here and ensuring that we have the ability to deliver the schemes through the various mechanisms in our Departments.

That is something that I will continue to hammer home, and we will keep the Committee updated on that as it progresses. We were already engaged with energy intensive industry and businesses prior to that announcement, and we will continue to work with them to understand what could be effective in providing support.

Dr Archibald: The drafting of the 'good jobs' Bill will be completed next week and the Bill will be sent to the Executive for approval. That leaves plenty of time for the Bill to be scrutinised and passed within the mandate.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Minister. I appreciate that update. It is welcome that you now think that the completion of the drafting of the Bill is finally within sight. Workers here have been left behind with outdated employment rights legislation for far too long, so the Bill is overdue, but it is overdue because your colleague started the consultation nearly two years ago. Do you regret the delay in publishing the legislation, and are you worried that you are risking the legislation, which is urgent and needed for workers, because of the delay in introducing it to the Assembly?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. I do not regret that we have engaged extensively with businesses, workers and representatives of sectors to try to get the detail of the legislation correct. That is what I set out when I made the announcements on the way forward last year, which is that we would continue to engage constructively, and I believe that we have done that. There are complex and multiple elements to the Bill, and it is important to get the detail right. Challenging legal questions have come up in the drafting. Again, it is important to get those right to ensure that the Bill is legally robust. We are now in a place where it is very near completion.

As for the time for scrutiny, while it is not directly comparable, the Member could look to Westminster where the Employment Rights Bill was scrutinised by the Committee in seven weeks, so there is no reason why this legislation cannot be progressed in this mandate and the necessary and important scrutiny of it undertaken in plenty of time.

Miss Dolan: Minister, how will the 'good jobs' Bill strengthen rights for women?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. A number of important elements in the Bill support women specifically, as well as all workers, in particular in supporting a better work/life balance. There will be the right to request flexible working from day 1 of employment rather than at 26 weeks, which is the case currently. There are other important measures regarding carer's leave and neonatal care leave and pay to help parents whose newborns require extended medical attention so that they are able to focus on their child's needs. There will be revisions to paternity leave to afford families greater flexibility and extended redundancy protections for pregnant employees and those returning from family leave.

Other elements of the Bill will apply to other workers; for example, the right to move from a zero-hours contract to a banded-hours contract. We know that there are more women than men in low-paid, insecure work. Those improvements will, therefore, be particularly impactful for women. There are also enhanced trade union rights. Altogether, the provisions are designed to present a more inclusive, supportive and adaptable workplace culture where workers of all stripes are better able to balance their professional and personal responsibilities.

Ms Forsythe: Minister, last week, we saw an unprecedented intervention from the business community in Northern Ireland on your employment rights Bill. In light of that, when did you last meet the business community to discuss its objections to the Bill?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I am not sure about that being unprecedented; I previously had a letter from business organisations on the 'good jobs' Bill, and I have consistently and constructively engaged with them specifically on the legislation in the past year and before that.

Important points have been taken on board from some of the concerns that they raised, which will become apparent as the Bill is published. We will continue to engage on some of the concerns that they set out, such the timing of the introduction of certain measures, on which I have committed to a phased implementation of the measures in the Bill. We will set out the timetable for that in order to ensure that people are aware of it and that we support the measures as they are introduced.

I have ongoing engagement with the business sector through different forums, including my engagement forum. I will continue to meet the organisations specifically in relation to the Bill as it progresses through its stages.

Ms Nicholl: I hope that the Minister is feeling better. She will know that one of the biggest issues with the 'good jobs' Bill is that the consultation was viewed by many as an options paper. At this late stage, how does that sit with the scrutiny of the Bill, given that, for example, Committee scrutiny of the Justice Bill took 18 months? I want us to fix the Bill so that it works for everyone in the Assembly, but I am really concerned about the time frame to do that properly. What reassurance can she give that everyone will have their voice heard and be able to have input?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. The consultation was run as required, and I set out my way forward nearly a year ago. Since then, there has been considerable engagement with everybody involved to understand the detail, to take on board the points that were raised in the consultation and to try to reflect them in the drafting of the Bill.

As I indicated to Mr O'Toole, I do not believe that there is a timing problem with having the legislation considered by the Committee; there is plenty of time. As I have repeatedly said, I want to introduce the legislation and get it to the Committee in advance of the summer recess so that there is time to ensure that the scrutiny takes place and for everybody to look at the detail and have their say on it. The Committee will come to its position.

I agree with the Member that it is really important that we pass the Bill. There are lots of important things in it, some of which are simply about catching up where we have fallen behind, so that needs to happen.

Mr Carroll: A job of work will be required to challenge the narrative put out by business organisations about the Bill. I hope that that limited but important Bill is not watered down as a result of pressure from them, and I welcome assurances to that effect.

Minister, will you make it clear whether provision for the demands made by Unite the union — I declare that I am a Unite member — on the extreme weather conditions policy will be included in your Bill? If not, would you be open to supporting amendments to that effect?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. I cannot give assurances on his first point, because, once the Bill is introduced, it is up to the Assembly, and Members will table amendments. I am completely behind the measures that I will bring forward, as is my party, but others will take their own view. It is really important that those of us who advocate better workers' rights continue to make the case for why what is being introduced is important and will make a difference to the lives of workers.

I have engaged with the unions on the issue in the second point. I am sensitive to the issues around it. It boils down to workers' safety, essentially, which is really important. It is not included in the Bill, because it was not consulted on as part of the Bill. We continue to work with the unions, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and others on the particular asks, so I am open to looking at what is suggested, but I would not want to rush those measures, because it is about getting the balance right and ensuring that workers are protected.

Dr Archibald: The British Chancellor has made it clear that any further support will be targeted at households that need it most. At present, as the Member knows, only £17 million has been earmarked for support here following the significant rise in heating oil costs. That is insufficient. However, work has been undertaken by the Minister for Communities, and the Executive agreed last week to provide additional support. That will be rolled out over the next short number of months. More work needs to be done to ensure that that support gets out.

I speak regularly with my counterparts in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, Minister Shanks and Minister Martin McCluskey and have emphasised that further support is needed. Separate to that and before the current energy crisis, my officials, along with officials from the Department of Finance, secured a commitment from Treasury to cover 75% of the NIRO cost to consumers. That is consistent with the support announced for British electricity consumers in the autumn Budget. It amounts to a discount of around £30 on domestic electricity bills per household each year for three years, which totals around £81 million.

The British Government will extend the Energy Prices Act 2022 through a statutory instrument (SI) in the Westminster Parliament, which is the fastest route available to us to pass on the savings to households here. The SI was laid on Monday 16 March and is expected to complete its passage before the summer recess. In the past number of weeks, my officials agreed in principle with electricity suppliers, NIE, the Consumer Council and the Utility Regulator how the discount will be delivered. We will now seek approval for the business case for that funding from Treasury, and it is expected that electricity consumers will see savings from 1 July this year and then from 1 April in 2027 and 2028.

Mr Kingston: I thank the Minister for her answer. Since I submitted my question, the £100 of support for home heating oil for lower-income households — up to 340,000 households — across Northern Ireland has been announced. That was led by the Minister for Communities and supported by the Executive, and it includes funding from Treasury. That support is very much to be welcomed.

Businesses are also suffering from the spike in energy costs. What specific schemes is the Minister, as the Minister for the Economy, considering to support businesses that are suffering?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. He will recognise that, when it comes to providing financial support, the Executive do not have the firepower to put in place support schemes to the degree that is required. We have been making the case to the British Government for them to step in in a way similar to what they did during the energy cost crisis following the start of the war in Ukraine. In recent weeks, I have met my counterparts and made the case to them directly. I am told that everything is being kept under review.

Separately, I have made the case that we need to see urgent cuts to fuel duty and tax. The power to do that rests solely with the British Government. That would have a meaningful, although not huge, impact on the cost base of businesses. That is an important measure that should be taken forward.

Ms Murphy: Thank you for the update, Minister. How can already hard-pressed households and families be protected from price gouging as a result of increasing energy costs?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. Over recent weeks, since the current crisis began, I have met representatives of the heating oil and natural gas sectors, National Energy Action (NEA) and business organisations more widely so that I might understand at first hand what the cost pressures are and what impact they are having on lower-income and vulnerable households and businesses. The home heating oil retail market operates under the rules of competition legislation. Trading Standards Service (TSS) works with the heating oil industry to ensure that everyone operates within competition and consumer protection law. As the Member will know, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) recently launched a market study on the retail supply of home heating oil, which includes the market here. That study will examine whether the market is working well for consumers, and, if it finds that it does not, it is expected that it will identify opportunities to improve outcomes for consumers.

As the Member will also know, the Consumer Council conducts its home heating oil price checker and fuel price checker surveys across the North, benchmarking energy supplier prices in order to support consumers to make informed decisions. That measure was introduced in the past number of years to improve transparency about costs and to make people aware of where things sit and of what the comparators are.

Mr McNulty: Minister, making families wait until the summertime for a mere £100 towards their heating costs, which is the Executive's belated and sole response to the energy crisis, does not cut it. I know that your party's perennial get-out-of-jail-free card is to blame the British Government, so is it fair to say that your party wants all the power and all the control but none of the responsibility?

Dr Archibald: I do not agree with the Member on that at all. I think that most people out there recognise where the levers sit in relation to the measures that can be taken and recognise that the real levers that will be effective in providing meaningful support to people are with the British Government. I made the point to Mr Honeyford that I have continually impressed upon British Ministers the need to engage with Executive Ministers on the types of supports that they are bringing forward so that those can be put in place as expeditiously as they are in Britain. That does not happen in the way that it should, but I will continue to bang that door and try to ensure that we are in a position to provide support. So far, there has not been enough support forthcoming. We continue to raise with the British Government the fact that that needs to change and that we need to see meaningful intervention, such as that that we saw following the start of the war in Ukraine. That follows the conversation about the Budget for the whole Executive. Again, we are involved in negotiations on that with the British Government, because it is very clear that what is on the table does not provide us with the ability to provide public services in the way that people expect and deserve us to.

Dr Archibald: My Department published the Government response to the consultation on support for low-carbon heating in residential buildings on 26 January. The responses to the consultation are being used to inform policy decisions on the design of and rules and guidance for such support. In tandem with the consultation process, officials have been working on a design plan for a new domestic energy efficiency and low-carbon heat support scheme that will replace the NI sustainable energy programme (NISEP). The design plan is nearing completion, and the intention is to publish it in the coming months. The plan includes details on eligibility, funding options and quality assurance and outlines how the scheme will be managed and operated. Through the course of this year, work will focus on developing the required business case, procurement documentation and support scheme regulations. It is anticipated that a new support scheme will be launched in the latter part of 2027.

Mr Donnelly: Thanks to the Minister for that answer. The Department's consultation on low-carbon heating support closed in January 2025, which was over 15 months ago. The response that the Minister referred to was published in January this year, and it commits not to a scheme but to further consultation. Can she explain why it will take until at least 2027 to legislate for that? Does she accept that, for families who are still relying on heating oil, the pace of progress is not good enough?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. I reflect the fact that it is important that we get support schemes right. Working through the detail and ensuring that what is put in place both works and is value for money are really important. That is something that this place has certainly learned over recent years.

I accept that there are people who would like to be in a position to transition from fossil fuels more quickly, and we need to do as much as we can to help them do that. The support scheme is one element that will help people, particularly those in lower-income households, to do that. We also need to provide information, advice and guidance to support people to transition from fossil fuels. Again, that is something that we are working on through the Department. We support lower-income households in particular. We have provided additional money to the sustainable energy programme that is provided through the Utility Regulator, and we have topped that up over the past number of years. To date, that funding has helped 2,500 low-income households across the region, and we are topping it up again this year.

Mr Kelly: Will the Minister provide an update on the closure of the RHI scheme?

Mr Speaker: Briefly, Minister.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member. As he will know, the RHI (Closure of Non-Domestic Scheme) Bill passed its Further Consideration Stage just yesterday. The Department has completed consultation on the policy proposals for the closure regulations, and a report on the outcome of the consultation has been published. We are finalising the draft regulations, with the aim of commencing formal Assembly processes for the regulations immediately following the enactment of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: We move now to topical questions.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. Clearly, I am aware of the announcement that was made by Ulster University last week. It will be a worrying time for staff, and my thoughts are with them and their families as they face that uncertainty. That is why I am working to secure a budget settlement that can deliver a prosperous economy with a sustainable further and higher education sector. I have been clear that the financial position facing my Department is extremely challenging, as it is for all Departments. The Executive have also been clear about that. We have been warning repeatedly that our finances are unsustainable. We need to ensure that we have a proper, sustainable funding model for the Executive that will allow us to invest in our public services. From my perspective, last week's announcement by Ulster University is a real-world consequence of the Executive not being funded to their level of need. We need to be able to provide sustainable funding.

Despite the challenging budgetary position that my Department has faced over the past two years and into the next financial year, I have worked to prioritise skills through our further and higher education institutions. I have argued and been successful in lobbying for additional in-year funding to support our further and higher education institutions, and I have engaged in good faith with both universities to try to enable them to have the best possible budgetary settlement. I will continue to work with my Executive colleagues to try to deliver on that.

Ms McLaughlin: With the greatest respect, Minister, the sector is collapsing. I have engaged with Ulster University, and I have spoken to Queen's University and, this morning, the unions. There is genuine shock at the recent announcement. I am particularly concerned about the 108 jobs that are at risk at Magee. How can you stand over the Executive's commitment, and your commitment, to expand Magee at the same time as the workforce is being collapsed? What action are you taking to protect jobs, protect the capacity and deliver for the north-west?

Dr Archibald: Again, I thank the Member for her question. It is fair to reflect on the fact that the further and higher education sector in the North is no different from that in Britain. The common factor is the lack of investment coming from the British Government. That is why, with a united voice, the Executive, and all parties in the House, need to continue to demand better for the people whom we represent.

The expansion of Magee is an Executive priority; it is a Programme for Government and New Decade, New Approach commitment. Since the Executive were restored in 2024, my Department has prioritised investment of £35 million. We have seen the impact of that through the 22% increase in student numbers. The Magee task force is working alongside other partners to help us deliver on the 10,000 student target. Significant progress has been made there, but we need to ensure that our further and higher education institutions have a more sustainable funding settlement. I am working hard to deliver on that.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. My Department will shortly consult on a new Irish language policy. This marks a significant step forward in our commitment to support and promote the Irish language across the region. We are aiming for a full roll-out of the Irish language policy from September and will ensure that there is a comprehensive and inclusive approach. This initiative reflects my commitment to cultural diversity and enrichment of language heritage in our communities.

Mr Sheehan: Gabhaim míle buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin.

Can the Minister please tell us what areas the policy will cover?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. The forthcoming Irish language policy will cover a wide range of areas, reflecting the Department's commitment to cultural and linguistic diversity. The key areas include support for Irish language education; resources and training for staff; increased visibility of the language in departmental communications; and collaboration with community groups to encourage broader engagement. The policy will also address opportunities to integrate Irish language initiatives into economic development, tourism and workplace environments, ensuring that the language remains accessible and relevant across multiple sectors. It is important that we have a comprehensive approach, and, through that, the Department aims to nurture an inclusive environment in which the language can flourish and be beneficial to our communities in future generations.

Dr Archibald: The North City Business Centre is a registered charity, as the Member will be well aware, that was established to provide advice, support and accommodation for small businesses in north Belfast. It seeks to address enterprise creation and development, support skills for employment and act as a catalyst for economic regeneration.

In collaboration with NCBC, I recently completed a substantial investment project which has brought the total footprint of NCBC to almost 200,000 square feet through three new sites. Following redevelopment, the new sites will attract many new and growing businesses and create new local jobs in that highly disadvantaged area. The project has been made possible with £3·75 million from the local growth fund. North Belfast has enormous potential, and this acquisition ensures that local people and businesses will be at the centre of future growth, so I look forward to seeing those buildings becoming vibrant assets that support opportunity, innovation and community well-being.

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

First, I welcome the fact that that land has been found and handed over. Has the North City Business Centre got any early plans for how it will maximise the use of the new land for the benefit of the local community?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. I understand that the new properties will be used collectively to enhance economic opportunities in the area and provide space for entrepreneurs and businesses to help them develop, network and grow, through both office accommodation and meeting rooms. I understand that there is already very strong interest in the available space. The Northgate site will also be used to provide community facilities, and a steering group of local community representatives has been established to further develop and shape the proposals for community use. As the Member will know, significant refurbishment will be required before the majority of the space can be operational. However, consideration is being given to community uses of the buildings in advance of the refurbishment works.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. The main lever for engaging with communities around promoting cultural events and events across the board is through Tourism NI, so I encourage anyone who is engaged in organising events to do that. There will be opportunities to access support via Tourism NI. The organisers of the events that the Member referred to very often engage with and are supported by their local councils. Again, I encourage continued engagement in that regard to ensure that there is economic benefit from any events that take place. It is important that events are inclusive of all communities.

Ms Brownlee: I thank the Minister for her response. This week, I will meet with Tourism NI to discuss the promotion of the Royal Landing festival, which takes place in my constituency of East Antrim. Can the Minister explain why events such the Royal Landing festival, the sham fight at Scarva and the Twelfth are not included on Tourism NI's website and why information on them is not provided on its tourism calendar? Will the Minister attempt to rectify that, get those events on the calendar as soon as possible and get them promoted throughout Northern Ireland and beyond?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I encourage her to raise that issue when she meets with Tourism NI. We are working through the implementation of the tourism vision and action plan. Supporting community tourism and cultural tourism is part of that. I certainly encourage her to take up any opportunities that she has to engage in that regard, particularly with Tourism NI on its own marketing material.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. The Member will be aware that all public appointments go through a rigorous process that is set out by the Commissioner for Public Appointments for NI. That has been the case for any appointments that I have made since I have been in post, both in my current Department and in my previous Department. A robust process is followed that involves application and interviews. The party colleague to whom you referred came through that process, as did the others who were appointed. My view is that he is not only an experienced businessperson and former elected representative but a passionate advocate for all that is good about this place and our businesses, communities and potential. I believe that he will be an asset to the board. I also believe that questions are being asked about his appointment only because he is a prominent republican. To me, that stinks of sectarianism. There are no no-go positions for republicans any more. That is just a fact.

In relation to the conference to which you referred, I followed the advice from Invest NI. I do not know what advice others are reading, but it said that I should decline it as a stand-alone event. I went as part of a wider programme — a well-worthwhile programme — on prioritising investment in the north-west. If I had not attended, my colleagues in the north-west would rightly ask why I had not taken the opportunity to represent them.

Mr Tennyson: I find it remarkable, Minister, that, when questions are asked about perceived conflicts of interest, you reach for the sectarianism card. I find that quite remarkable.

What potential conflicts were identified and what steps did you take to manage them? Did you consider recusing yourself from the process? Did you ask the selection panel for a merit-ordered list?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. It was a ministerial appointment, so I would not recuse myself from that. During my time in the Department of Finance and the Department for the Economy, I have made many appointments. I can assure the Member that the political allegiances or background of any candidate play no part in it. I engage in my role with elected representatives, former elected representatives and former party staffers across a range of agencies and lobby organisations. I have appointed people to different boards, and their political allegiance has played no part in that whatsoever. I appointed a former UUP MLA to the Fiscal Council. Nobody raised any questions about that. The issue here is that a process was followed and followed properly. I stand over it entirely.

Mr Speaker: Briefly, Minister.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. Mr Carroll asked a similar one earlier. I have also engaged with the unions around the issue. We are undertaking a programme of work, alongside the Health and Safety Executive and the unions, to address the issues that they have highlighted, look at what is required, be it legislative change or better guidance, and ensure that we provide the right protections for workers, because I very much recognise the issue. There can be terrible consequences if things are not done in the way that they are supposed to be done. It is important that we ensure that the appropriate protections are in place.

Mr Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Mr McReynolds: As a member of the Infrastructure Committee and the Northern Ireland Policing Board, I welcome the opportunity to speak on such an important and current topic, and I am grateful to the SDLP for tabling the motion. Antisocial behaviour involving e-scooters and scramblers is becoming more and more of an issue with each passing day. Today, we will all speak broadly on various scenarios that we have seen in our areas, where many of those vehicles have been used by children and young people.

First, I will address the issue of e-scooters, which the motion mentions. Over the past five years, the PSNI has continued to see a rise in incidents relating to e-scooters. Over 200 injuries have been reported, some of which required the Ambulance Service to be called. We need to be clear that e-scooters are not toys. We have seen the consequences of misuse across the UK and Ireland already, with e-scooters having caused serious injuries to riders and pedestrians and, sometimes, fatalities. Just last year, a fourteen-year-old boy got on the back of a friend's e-scooter on the way home from school. He was not wearing a helmet and was holding on to his friend. They were in a collision that, sadly, cost him his life when his unprotected head hit the ground. That causes me grave concern as a new parent and as someone who recently witnessed children coming out of Strandtown Primary School in east Belfast, just half a mile down the road from here, on an e-scooter: two individuals, without helmets, with one of them giving a lift to his friend. They made their way along a footpath beside the busy crossroads at North Road. Many who use those vehicles are children, and we want to see not the potential criminalisation of children but education and targeted interventions, which pilots have shown to be successful.

I turn to scramblers. In 2016, we saw the death of Valerie Armstrong in Colin Glen Forest Park, following a collision caused by a scrambler. Scramblers are not toys; they are heavy, motorised bikes that travel at high speeds. Just this morning, I received a call from a resident of Orangefield Avenue who is interested in today's debate. He was concerned about dangerous scrambler use and recognised on the call that police are doing everything that they can, yet it is still happening, and they are unable to intervene more strongly.

Innovative approaches are being applied, and I commend the PSNI and its west Belfast neighbourhood teams, which have worked collaboratively with the local community, youth services and schools to address the growing use of scramblers. That is how we will address the issues. They have shown that education can have a significant impact, with a 29% reduction in incidents involving scramblers in just one year.

We now need further clarity on those vehicles. Currently, the Department for Infrastructure lacks e-scooter or scrambler-specific legislation or guidance, which makes enforcing the rules on using such vehicles vague and impractical. It is a serious road safety issue, and I call on the Minister for Infrastructure to look into potential measures to address it. There are many challenges with e-scooters and scramblers, but, as in other countries, there are many opportunities, if we can get it right. E-scooter and scramblers are here, and now we, as legislators, must catch up and approach the issue on the basis of sound evidence and good policy.

Mr Butler: I thank those who tabled the motion and those who tabled the amendment, because it is a relevant debate on a prevalent issue. I will put that in a little bit of context.

A number of weeks ago, I was in Lisburn Square in Lisburn, which is a beautiful, pedestrianised precinct. It is a great shopping area, which partners Bow Street Mall: the finest that Lagan Valley has to offer. In that area during the daytime, there were a number of young people on large bikes. They were not on e-scooters or scramblers, but they were doing exactly the thing that we are talking about today. They were not riding or using them in the manner that most young people and bike users do. They were using them in a way that was deliberately provocative and dangerous not just to other users but, sadly, to themselves.

I tried to intervene. I thought that I would be Billy Big Robbie, if you like, but, unfortunately, I found that they were not in a receptive mood. I could not engage them in conversation at all. I then had a conversation with a local shop owner. Regretfully, that shop owner, who has spoken to the PSNI, the local chamber of commerce and industry and the local council on the issue, has had to make adjustments to their opening times. They have had to close their premises because of the actions of a small number of people who ride around the area on e-scooters and bikes, which puts people off shopping there. That is only one impact, but that impact on our high street is something that we have not discussed today. People are put off shopping. The elderly are probably put off shopping, because of the decline in their reaction time and their difficulty with spatial awareness. They are scared. That is the reality.

I will also speak for another sector of our community that does not have its voice heard nearly enough, and that is the disabled sector. This has more to do with the active pedestrian versus the cyclist, and I do not want to get into that today, except to say that we should all look at some of the testimony that the RNIB has provided for the debate. The RNIB is telling us that 77% of blind and partially sighted survey respondents said that the behaviour of e-scooter riders makes them feel unsafe, that 61% of them said that they cannot make the journeys that they want or need to make and that 70% of them avoid paths that are shared with cyclists or those on e-scooters.

I am not here to demonise people who use any of those vehicles appropriately, because all of us probably had a BMX at one stage and rode around our streets. Thinking back to that time, however, we all knew what manners were. We also knew about safety. I said that I do not want to demonise young people, and I do not, but there are two approaches that we need to take. The first is contained in the motion and the amendment and concerns the legal context. It is about how we are going to support the PSNI in its endeavours to deal with repossession through the four Es process. I will, however, talk about the approach that is much more important, and that is the preventative approach. That is where the real energy needs to be directed. There is something that we can do even now, individually or collectively, and that is raise awareness and promote education at every level of society.

After I had my experience in Lisburn Square a number of weeks ago, I wrote to the local PSNI superintendent, the local council and Lisburn chamber to try to arrange a collective meeting, which is still to happen. Other voices that need to be at that meeting are those of parents and young people, because, when we talk about making a cultural and societal change, all voices should be equal.

We also need to better understand what facilities we have for young people. I mentioned that we all had BMXs at one time, and one of the best interventions made in Lisburn was to create a BMX track at Bells Lane park, which is still there and is still used. Yes, we need to look at the justice part, at the enforcement part and at the laws on the purchase and use of scramblers and e-scooters, but we also need to provide our young people with diversions. I can fully understand why those vehicles look, sound and are experienced as fun, but let us not forget about our local shopping centres, our disabled community and our elderly.

Ms Flynn: I welcome the opportunity to speak to this important motion. It was interesting to hear my colleague Emma Sheerin provide feedback that the issue does not necessarily affect all our constituencies. I have not really taken any time to step away from West Belfast to think about how the issue might impact on different parts of the North and the island. I am relieved and pleased to hear that not all our communities are blighted. It is a very difficult and frustrating issue to try to deal with, so I am glad that not everyone has to.

That said, it is having an impact on communities. As a West Belfast representative, I acknowledge, as has been mentioned, the devastating loss of life that we witnessed, not so long ago, in 2016. That poor young mother of three kids lost her life as a result of the issue that we are talking about today. Since that happened, I cannot help but think about those kids, that girl's husband and her family, who will forever live with the pain of what happened on that day. That is the reality that we are dealing with.

When Mark Durkan opened the debate, he talked about the essence of the motion, which is what we can do better to deal with the matter. It genuinely comes down to the fact that there is potential for loss of life. That is how serious it is. Mark mentioned the near misses, and we see those happening regularly in our constituencies, on our roads and streets. That mother lost her life and her children no longer have their mummy with them, and that breaks my heart every time that I think about it. Every time that I see a scrambler in West Belfast, which is pretty regularly, it takes me back — it is probably the same for anyone who sees them — to what happened to that girl. That is why we must do all that we can by way of regulation, education with parents, enforcement of legislation and supporting the PSNI to have the resources to be able to enforce the law. The PSNI has spoken about its capacity to chase scramblers up and down the roads and the dangers that go with that. When you live in an area where that is a pretty regular occurrence, you understand why it is very difficult to manage.

When I am driving to work or taking my son to school, or when people in my constituency and in constituencies like mine are going about their daily business, it is so frustrating to see one of those scramblers flying at speed right up to the tail of your car. It is so dangerous when they drive in between lanes or alongside you. They are swerving between lanes and pulling out in front of your car. Most of our roads in West Belfast are main thoroughfares, but we have some country roads as well. Regardless of where those incidents take place, they are so dangerous. They pose a danger not just for drivers but for pedestrians who are going about their business, walking on the footpath or crossing the road. There are so many opportunities for causing injuries or — please God, no one wants to see it — further loss of life.

I am grateful that we are having this discussion today. I do not want to take away from one element or another, but legislation will be very important to bring us to a better place. I am thinking about the young girl in the South who lost her life and what her poor family is going through. The South is slightly behind us, in that we have legislation that makes scramblers on public roads illegal, but we need to do much more, and education will be so important.

I want to make a special appeal to parents. None of us does things perfectly, but as a parent, I ask you to be aware of the dangers to your child when they ride on a scrambler or an e-scooter, as well as to the local community. No one wants to be in a situation where they are dealing with a loss of life that is caused by a scrambler or an e-scooter, whether that be the person using those vehicles or the people who may come to harm on our streets. If there is any support that we can give to the police and parents as a result of the motion, or if we can strengthen legislation and regulations, let us do it so that no one else loses their life.

Mr Bradley: I support the DUP amendment. We need to understand that the motion and the amendment refer to a small minority of reckless drivers and not the majority of people who own scramblers or e-scooters. Constituents are, however, fed up seeing those vehicles being driven at speed, with no regard for pedestrians, no regard for the law and no regard for public safety. Older people are frightened, parents are worried, and people with sight or mobility impairments are being put in danger in places where they should feel safe. Let us be honest, in some areas, this goes beyond antisocial behaviour. Those vehicles are widely believed to be used for intimidation, coercion and criminality. If that is the reality in our communities, government must stop lagging behind events and start to act.

I live in a rural area, so I virtually never see e-scooters unless I come into the town, but they are a problem. In the rural constituency that I represent, the problem is mostly the irresponsible use of scramblers.

The PSNI is being asked to deal with the problem while operating under serious constraints. Officers know that direct pursuit can create a major risk to life. Offenders know it too and exploit that weakness. They believe that they can act with impunity, because the chances of being caught are too low and the consequences are too weak. That must end. In my day, the problem was the Honda step-through moped: the Honda 50 and the Honda 90. In today's society, it is e-scooters and scramblers.

The police need more than sympathy; they need powers, resources and technology. That means additional support for drone teams and drone-equipped officers and stronger seizure powers. Let us be clear: small fines are no deterrent. When the vehicles are being used to endanger the public or intimidate communities, they should be seized, retained and, where appropriate, destroyed. Offenders should be permanently deprived of them.

Enough passing from one Department to another, enough delay and enough excuses. If the law is too weak, strengthen it. If the police need more powers, give them. If offenders exploit loopholes, close them. Our communities deserve protection, not platitudes. The Minister must act in collaboration with the Minister for Infrastructure to legislate to curb the irresponsible use of scramblers, e-scooters and similar vehicles. I support the amendment.

Miss McAllister: I will start by paying tribute to the lives that have been lost not just in Northern Ireland but in the Republic. We saw the recent introduction of Grace's law in the Republic, although some of it already applied here. In the past month, that has brought even greater attention to the issue here.

I will also speak about the current law on e-scooters. In the previous two mandates, pressure was applied, and there were calls for new legislation on e-scooters before they had picked up the pace to get where we are now. We have not seen that progress yet, so I hope that the Department of Justice and the Department for Infrastructure, which have shown a willingness to work together, will do so.

I also want to highlight what we can do about the manufacturing of e-scooters. They are targeted towards an older population, but let us face it: it is families who are buying them for teenagers and children.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Will the Member give way?

Miss McAllister: Yes.

Mr Muir: Does the Member acknowledge that the marketing of the vehicles, particularly online, is concerning and that security and safety issues are not fully considered by some of the retailers?

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

Miss McAllister: Thank you. I agree with the Minister. The e-scooters are targeted at the younger generation, who want to use them, although they are a different form of travel. We see people use them responsibly, for example to get to work, but, for the most part, that is not what we see daily.

I am told that some e-scooters can go up to 60 mph. The ones that we generally see can go up to 40 mph. We want to see more 20 mph zones for cars in our neighbourhoods, yet we have scooters that can go up to 40 mph, and there are kids on them without helmets. It is absolute madness. We also see them not just in green spaces but on our roads. In North Belfast, we often see many young people trying to get to the Belfast hills on the main roads. They cut across all the traffic, again not wearing helmets. I often think that it will come to one of their friends losing their life for some of them to think that it is not cool any more, because the scooters are seen as that. It would be really unpopular, but, if we had greater powers — from the responses that the Minister has given to questions for written answer, it appears that that is supported — we could all tell the police which shops to go to or where people hang out with e-scooters, and they could go and see a bunch of them, because e-scooters are becoming more and more popular in certain areas.

I will move on to talk about North Belfast in particular and the whole Belfast hills area, which leads on to west Belfast, where scramblers are being used in non-rural settings more and more. There should be targeted campaigning towards using them on proper land that is built for that purpose. They are totally destroying green spaces. I remember having meetings with the Belfast Hills Partnership and the National Trust about the use of bikes — not e-bikes — by mountain bikers on Cave Hill and in the Belfast hills and trying to remove them from there. They had to jump through hoops to be able to use those spaces safely, yet people are able to wreak havoc on e-scooters and scramblers. I know that the police want to be able to do something more about the issue. Colleagues in the Chamber from North Belfast often hear about the police seizing boom boxes and drink up on Cave Hill, but e-scooters and scramblers are more dangerous.

Hopefully, if all of us work together, we can progress this. It seems that it is something that we all agree on in the Chamber. We know that it is a problem that should be fixed. There is an education piece not just for young people but for parents, because they are buying them. It is not actually the young people who are buying them. Hopefully, by all working together, we can progress this. The neighbourhood policing teams need the help and resources. The policing infrastructure can enhance those teams, which will enable them to do that.

Mr Brett: There are occasions on which the Assembly spends time talking about things that may not be as important as this issue, which, in many cases, is a life-and-death scenario. It is a life-and-death scenario for the young people in my constituency who use e-scooters on public roads, footways and open spaces. It is a matter of life and death for other people using the road and for pedestrians trying to go about their business.

Footage that I released yesterday speaks to the epidemic in North Belfast: 35 young people drove along Shore Road and onto Antrim Road through Duncairn Gardens, circling drivers, pedestrians and the police. People contact me every day about the issue on my constituency email and Facebook Messenger. They are afraid that, when they use the road, they will hit one of the young people using those scooters, or, when they are trying to enjoy open spaces, they are intimidated by those users.

We need to send a clear message: it is illegal to use an e-scooter on public roads. It is a simple message. Children of 11, 12 and younger do not have the resources to spend hundreds of pounds on the scooters; they are being bought for them by their parents. I have a simple message for people who are purchasing those scooters for their children: you need to wise up. You should not be buying your children things that could cause harm to them or others.

I am particularly concerned about the issue. In East Belfast, my colleague David Brooks has done a lot of important work on this. To date, I have been disappointed by the response that has been given by the Minister of Justice when this has been raised. When I asked her whether she would encourage the Police Service of Northern Ireland to have a targeted campaign of education and enforcement on the issue, her response was that the Police Service of Northern Ireland is an autonomous organisation. The Minister of Justice can pick up the phone to the Chief Constable on a range of issues. For the Minister of Justice to wash her hands of this issue is a dereliction of duty.

Miss McAllister: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brett: Happily.

Miss McAllister: I appreciate what the Member is trying to get at, but I sit on the Policing Board with three of your colleagues, and I do not believe that the issue has ever been brought up there. Have you tried to go down that route? We would be more than happy to work with you and your colleagues on the Policing Board to hold the police to account on whether they will initiate that kind of campaign.

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

Mr Brett: Thank you.

We will hear remarks from another member of the Policing Board here today, but I have no doubt that Cheryl Brownlee and other members have raised the issue. They will speak to the record about that. It is not difficult for the Minister of Justice to pick up the phone to the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Outsourcing this to the Policing Board — the more people who raise it, the better.

The Member said that the Justice Minister has a willingness to look at legislation. A willingness does not deliver solutions. A willingness does not stop people using the scooters, nor does it empower the police to seize and destroy. That is why our amendment is so important.

I am not often one to look to the Republic of Ireland for best practice, but the work that has been initiated in the Republic of Ireland since January has been really great to see. They have seized and destroyed hundreds of e-scooters and issued fixed penalty fines not just to those who have purchased them but to those who have sold them to young people or their families for use on the public road. That is why our amendment calls for immediate action on mandatory registration at time of purchase and powers for seizure and destruction, with a clear message given to the Police Service of Northern Ireland that they need to put extra resources into doing that.

It will take us a while to get legislation, so let us send a clear message to young people and parents today: you are risking lives, and it is only a matter of time before someone else is killed. You are inflicting anti-community behaviour on areas in which you live. You are destroying open spaces. Ultimately, if you are convicted for using one of those e-scooters and, God forbid, injuring someone, you will ruin your life chances moving forward.

It is important that we send a strong message. I will continue to engage with the Minister of Justice, and I encourage her to introduce legislation, either primary or through regulation, to ensure that the police have the power to tackle the matter properly. I fear that someone will be killed on the streets of our capital city very soon.

Mr Carroll: If you speak to people about e-scooters and scramblers, you will get a pretty strong response, as has been said, from constituents and people across the North. I echo the tributes paid to Valerie Armstrong by my colleague from West Belfast. It is hard to believe that it is 10 years since she was killed in Colin Glen Forest Park, where I previously worked. That shows that those vehicles can be dangerous. They were fatal for Valerie, so I want to remember her, as others have done, and pay tribute to her family.

In a general sense, I appeal to people — not just young people — not to engage in the ripping up of parks and public green spaces, particularly when using scramblers and any other vehicles. I would hazard a guess and say that it is not only young people who are doing that.

Like the Member for North Belfast, I met the Belfast Hills Partnership some months ago — I think that it was in the summer — on the issue. While we do not necessarily agree on the solutions to the crisis, there is unanimity on the fact that people using scramblers and such vehicles to go on to green spaces and cut or chop them up and obviously destroy habitats is an issue. We should appeal to people to not engage in that: stop doing that; it is disruptive behaviour. However, we should also be cognisant of the fact that industrial dumping and pollution ruins green spaces and ecosystems as well because of the harmful items placed in waters primarily by industrial farming.

This may be the more difficult part to grapple with: why are so many people — according to the statistics, it is primarily young people but not just them — attracted by those vehicles? I am generally not interested in cars or fast vehicles — I started to drive only two years ago — but I imagine that, for young people, it is the thrill of travelling fast. They often live alienated lives over which they have no control or say, and a vehicle going at 50 mph or whatever the Member said, dangerous as that is, can feel liberating or like a good thing to people, obviously with huge risks to them. In some cases, people can literally feel heard: some of those machines can be quite loud. People have also raised that with me in the constituency. We will have to try to understand why young people engage in the practice and encourage them to do it safely and not in a way that puts themselves and others at risk.

I missed the start of the debate, but there was a clear demand for managed sites — it has been referenced already — so that people can use the vehicles in a safe and controlled way. I appreciate that the AERA Minister is standing in, but we need to hear from the Justice Minister or even the AERA Minister about any work that is being progressed around safe sites.

Generally, I warn against a policing-led response to this. The response from young people to that will be that that is needed like a hole in the head. We need to have a youth-led response that actually talks to young people and engages with them. As a youth worker in a pervious job, I know that people respond to that better than when a stick used against them. It is much easier to take the approach of blaming young people and parents, but it is more appropriate and more difficult in this political climate to find the funding to invest in young people more generally, including in youth centres, which are being cut back, and in summer schemes, which are not being protected, to give young people a bit of hope and to listen to them about their needs, their wishes and what they are interested in.

In conclusion, it is worth saying that young people are already subject to stop-and-search on a huge level by the police. They are subject to spit hoods as well, and I do not think that we should be adding to that carte blanche. Obviously, if someone has committed serious injury or a serious crime, that speaks for itself, but, in a general sense, adopting that approach is quite mistaken. Of course, those vehicles are not risk-free, as I have outlined, but the elephant in the room in the debate, when we talk about risk to life and risk to people, is cars. How many people every single year do cars knock down and kill? Most of us in the Building use one, so I think that we need to focus on that as well —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Gerry.

Mr Carroll: — and not demonise our young people.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, Andrew Muir, to respond on behalf of the Minister of Justice. Minister, you will have up to 15 minutes.

Mr Muir: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to respond to today's important motion on behalf of the Minister of Justice, who, unfortunately, is unwell. I am sure that Members will join me in wishing her a speedy recovery.

Like the Members who have spoken today, the Minister is deeply concerned about the increasing use of scramblers and e-scooters in public places. Dangerous driving of vehicles such as those not only poses a significant risk to safety but has the potential to cause significant distress, as noted in the motion. At the lowest level, improper and illegal use of those vehicles in public spaces can be a nuisance to other members of the public, not to mention the noise that they create. Incidents such as the gathering of approximately 20 motorbikes in Falls Park earlier this month can also be accompanied by antisocial behaviour, which can cause further disruption to the public and even damage public facilities. In more serious cases, illegal use of those vehicles in public spaces can lead to significant injury and even death. The Minister of Justice has asked me to take this opportunity to acknowledge and extend her sincere condolences to the families of those killed on our roads through the dangerous use of scramblers and e-scooters, and I share that. Every one of those deaths is a tragedy, and, in conjunction with my Executive colleagues, the Justice Minister believes that it is essential that we consider very carefully how we work together to have the greatest impact on saving lives.

The Justice Minister commends the Police Service of Northern Ireland for the dedication that it has shown in tackling the problem, using the existing enforcement powers available to it and other diversionary approaches such as the motorcycle awareness project.

The motorcycle awareness project was developed following the establishment of a cross-government working group in 2016, convened by the Department for Infrastructure, which holds policy responsibility for road safety. The working group was convened following the death in July 2016 of Valerie Armstrong, who was tragically killed when she was struck by a scrambler being ridden illegally while she was walking her dogs in Colin Glen Forest Park. Sadly, that heartbreaking incident was followed by a number of others like it in 2016 and beyond. Previous interventions to address the illegal use of scramblers have often focused on awareness raising and enforcement, with limited success when it came to tackling the root causes of the issue. Instead, the motorcycle awareness project sought to harness young people's passion rather than suppressing it as the means for diversion from offending and antisocial behaviour.

As recognised in today's motion, the motorcycle awareness project was a resounding success. Feedback from participants highlighted improved behaviour at home and changed attitudes to their riding and even to the police. There was also evidence of a ripple effect in the community as students informed peers of the dangers of that activity. Through feedback and evaluation, students also reported improved mental health, employment opportunities and personal development benefits. Students have subsequently contributed to off-road motor sport, including by working at Arenacross and local motorcycling events. As the motion correctly identifies, and as the success of the motorcycle awareness project demonstrated:

Its success could not have been achieved without cross-sectoral support, however. If such initiatives are to be expanded urgently, as is proposed in the motion, the Minister of Justice believes that it is important that the justice system receive support from other Departments, such as the Department for Infrastructure and the Department for Communities, as well as adequate funding from the Executive to support delivery.

Under the current legislative framework for such vehicles, police constables have powers to seize vehicles, including scramblers and e-scooters, that are used:

Those powers are in articles 65 and 66 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008. Similar powers are provided to constables to seize vehicles driven without insurance under the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981.

The motion refers to developments in other jurisdictions. Proposals in the Crime and Policing Bill, which I understand is now in its final legislative stages in Parliament, remove the requirement for officers to issue a warning before seizing a vehicle. The Home Office recently consulted on proposals to increase statutory charges and to reduce the disposal time frames for seized vehicles.

The Justice Minister wishes to highlight the recent increased regulation of e-scooters that the Irish Government introduced in 2024 under the Road Traffic and Roads Act 2023 and the recent introduction of Grace's law, which has significantly increased regulation of the use of scramblers in that jurisdiction.

Mr Martin: I appreciate the Minister's taking an intervention. It was timely that I got an email to my office today about scramblers in an area of my constituency that I do not want to identify. The issue was highlighted to me, however, and the police are doing what they can. I do not know whether the Minister has any thoughts on this, and I appreciate that he is standing in for his colleague, but what responsibility does a landowner have in circumstances in which bikes and quads are being used on their land? I will quote from the email, which states that scramblers are being ridden:

What responsibility does the landowner have to secure the area of land that they own if young people are using quads and e-bikes on it?

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for his intervention. I am aware of statutory bodies' responsibilities, but when it comes to private landowners' responsibilities, I will need to speak to you in a bit more detail about the specifics. I know of a location in the Strangford constituency where scramblers are used on a private landowner's land, but that is done in an organised fashion. That shows understanding of the importance of the sport, but it is also done to keep people safe and to protect the wider environment. It therefore can be done, but if scramblers are being used on a private landowner's land, there will be civil powers to address that. I am happy to discuss the matter with you. Alternatively, you may wish to write to the Justice Minister to seek clarity on the specifics of the incident to which you referred, because I am not aware of it.

The DUP amendment to the motion:

Members will be aware that vehicle registration is primarily administered by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) UK-wide, and the UK Government do not appear to have any definitive plans to introduce registration at the point of sale. Other jurisdictions, however, such as the Republic of Ireland and Germany, have started to move away from a reliance on the traditional enforcement model, which focuses on police intervention, towards the introduction of a stronger regulatory framework. The Justice Minister is aware that police forces in England, Wales and Scotland have used drones as a tactical tool to tackle the illegal and antisocial use of scramblers, e-scooters and e-bikes. The amendment calls for that to happen here.

In Northern Ireland, the use of drones to tackle antisocial use of vehicles is an operational matter for the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and it is a matter of public record that the PSNI has operated drones since 2013 to help detect, prevent and investigate crime. The deployment of such resources is an operational matter for the Chief Constable to consider, so it would not be appropriate for the Justice Minister to comment further or to direct the use of drones for particular types of crime. As my colleague Nuala McAllister said, there is an opportunity to raise that issue for further scrutiny through the Policing Board.

Developments in other jurisdictions demonstrate not just the need to ensure that adequate enforcement powers are available to the police but the key role that robust regulation of such vehicles through road safety legislation plays. That is why it is vital that any government response to the issue comprehensively considers the need for change in both areas of the law and why the Justice Minister has committed to working with the Minister for Infrastructure to ensure that any necessary amendments to the law in Northern Ireland are identified.

It is important to note that any such amendments would require both primary and secondary legislation to be enacted and would cut across the responsibilities of the Department of Justice and the Department for Infrastructure. Given the limited time left in the mandate, and the current legislative agenda, the Justice Minister sincerely does not believe that any such changes are possible before the next Assembly mandate.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for taking an intervention. Minister, I appreciate that the matter is not normally in your portfolio, but, having listened to what you just said, may I confirm that there are powers under articles 65 and 66 of the Criminal Justice Order and that the police have had drone powers since 2013? Whilst there will be no changes in this mandate, we perhaps need to look at how the police use the seizure powers that they have and their use of drones.

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for her intervention. Yes, powers are in place, and it is important that they are used.

There is a wider societal issue, which has been raised throughout the debate, about the need for people, particularly parents, to understand the risks associated with e-scooters, given their availability for purchase online at relatively low cost, which are to do with not just road safety but, as has been highlighted by the relevant statutory bodies, the risk of fire in houses.

A wider collective approach is required to the use of existing legislation and the consideration of any new legislation in the next mandate.

The Justice Minister believes that it is important to await the outcome of the recent Home Office consultation to ensure that any amendments are comprehensive. It is important that the House understands that, if we are to bring something forward, it needs to do the job. As I said, the Justice Minister remains committed to working collectively with the Department for Infrastructure to introduce any necessary amendments as soon as possible.

In conclusion, I hope that the Assembly recognises that the issue cannot be adequately addressed by the police and the justice system alone. Enforcement powers must be complemented by accompanying regulations that properly restrict the illegal use of the vehicles on our roads and in public spaces. It is also vital that recreational initiatives, such as the motorcycle awareness project, are developed to ensure that there are adequate opportunities for the vehicles to be used safely in the community. I know of one location where that occurs.

Taking account of recent developments, and in response to today's debate, the Justice Minister plans to write to the Minister for Infrastructure, the Minister for Communities and the Chief Constable to propose a joint meeting to discuss the development of a cross-government approach to the issue. I trust that the Assembly recognises the Minister's commitment to responding to the issue and will support the proposed way forward. We support the motion and the amendment.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Cheryl Brownlee to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. Cheryl, you have five minutes.

Ms Brownlee: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Only last week, I received video footage of a young child and his father walking from their home to the car. As the child stepped on to the footpath, a scrambler came past at speed. Only the quick reactions of the father in pulling him back prevented what could have been a devastating incident in my constituency.

Sadly, we have lost lives because of such incidents. Today's debate is really important, because we have come together to discuss something that really matters to people on the ground. It is not even about potential loss of life, because there has been loss of life. It is about what we are doing to ensure that we make real, tangible changes that will genuinely make a difference.

As a public representative, I am extremely frustrated, as, I am sure, are all of us in the Chamber. Parents are in distress. Communities are getting angry. Whilst we can all sit here and, as I certainly do, encourage reporting to the PSNI, we know rightly that it does not have enough powers to deal effectively with this growing problem.

I do not think that any of us wants to stand here in another few months, there having been another death that could have been prevented. Between 2021 and 2025, there have been 176 road traffic collisions involving e-scooters, in which 51 people were seriously injured. This is our opportunity to discuss that and to act here today.

We know that, at present, there are clear limitations on what the PSNI can do. Officers are often unable to pursue due to risk to life, particularly on footpaths and greenways. Offenders know and exploit that, and, in some cases, they actively seek the chase as though they get from it some sort of weird enjoyment. They are confident that, even if they are caught, the consequences will be minimal. That is where technology such as drones could be utilised to better address the issue through the use of aerial monitoring to track and pursue offenders properly.

In the first three months of 2026, 22 vehicles were seized. That is good news, but, often, the reality is that a small fine is paid, and then they are back out on the streets, and the hands of the police are again tied. That is little deterrent. The situation has to change. Police need the powers to properly seize, retain and, where necessary, dispose of the vehicles.

Mr Martin: Will the Member take an intervention?

Ms Brownlee: For you, anything.

Mr Martin: I am very thankful to the Member for taking an intervention. Having cited the use of drone technology, does the Member agree that that is a better and safer way to catch the young folk who do this, rather than the sort of police chase that she described? Does she agree that that is a better and safer way not just for the police but for the people who exploit the e-scooters?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You have an extra minute, Cheryl.

Ms Brownlee: Thank you.

I absolutely agree. We have that technology. The PSNI has it. It is about how the technology is utilised not only in this instance but in other areas where we should look to technology to make things safer and ensure that we get the response right, keep people safe at the time and get it across the line. We definitely need to look at using that technology much more.

We know that what we are discussing is not some hypothetical but is happening on our streets across Northern Ireland, although it may be happening in some areas more than others. We have all seen the footage of scramblers and e-scooters being driven recklessly through residential areas, which puts pedestrians, drivers and, indeed, those riders at risk. It makes me feel awful when an older person or somebody with a disability is terrified to go out of their home because of that. When somebody is scared to leave their property because of e-scooters or scramblers, we have to come down hard on it and ensure that we do as much as possible. As we know, such behaviour is not harmless. It is dangerous, illegal and deeply destructive to all communities, and people deserve to feel safe in the communities in which they live.

Our amendment is about closing the gap between the scale of the problem and the powers that are available to deal with it. If we are serious about tackling antisocial behaviour, we need to be prepared to match enforcement with legislation, innovation, resourcing and, of course, education. Education is critical. I am a big believer in diversionary programmes: I have seen them in my constituency and know that they work well. It is about working together. No single method will solve the problem. It is about how we utilise all of them together to make the biggest impact.

My colleague David Brooks, whom my colleague Phillip Brett mentioned, could not be here today, but he is at the forefront of the issue in his constituency of East Belfast, which has been particularly affected by the issue. The amendment that we have tabled was shaped by that engagement with local communities and front-line teams, grounded in practical experience, and it was tabled in a genuine effort to find solutions. Communities have waited long enough. The amendment provides practical but proportionate steps to restore safety and confidence in our communities. Let us send a really strong message. I urge Members to support our amendment.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Matthew O'Toole to conclude and wind up the debate on the motion. Matthew, you have 10 minutes.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. This has been a useful and thoughtful debate. Opposition days are often a mix of political division, with us holding the Executive to account, as we did robustly earlier today, but also seeking a degree of consensus and progress on issues. It is clear that the widespread use of e-scooters and scramblers is a huge issue in Belfast particularly and urban areas more generally.

I should say to Emma Sheerin that, although people sometimes do not believe it, I grew up in the countryside until I was a teenager, and there are scramblers —

Ms Sheerin: Not in south Derry.

Mr O'Toole: Not in south Derry, but, out the back of my house, a neighbour of mine — I will not name him, because he would not appreciate it — was a big scrambler person. The less said about that the better.

It is true that there are lots of young people who enjoy scrambler use. Some of them get into motor sport later in life. It can be a positive recreation. It is important, however, not to trivialise the consequences of the misuse of such vehicles. While we can acknowledge that many young people enjoy using such vehicles and can do so in a healthy way — Robbie Butler, who is not here any more, mentioned, for example, the use of open space in Lisburn in his constituency in order to give young people the space to use them — it is a plague in lots of communities. You can, on the one hand, acknowledge that people can use the vehicles for positive recreation and, on the other hand, say that there is huge and widespread misuse of them that is plaguing ordinary people, in particular the elderly, the vulnerable, people who are sight-disabled, those with pets and those moving about the city.

Members referred to the tragic circumstances of Valerie Armstrong, who died in Colin Glen a decade ago. She was a young mother with young children. There is no trivialising the loss of that life or, indeed, that of Grace Lynch, whose name has gone to the creation of Grace's law in the South.

It is true, as multiple Members mentioned, including the AERA Minister, that some but not all of Grace's law is already on the statute book in the North. Part of the purpose of today is to get consensus on moving forward the operational response. We and others make no apology for talking about operational matters, as it were, on the Floor of the Assembly. Obviously, the Policing Board is the practical means by which people ask questions of the police directly, but there is nothing wrong with MLAs talking in the Chamber about operational matters that affect their constituents, particularly when they relate to public safety. That does not mean that we are second-guessing the decisions of individual police officers.

We will support the DUP amendment, which makes interesting points, including on the increased use of regulation and drones. It has been a useful debate. I will run through a few of the comments that stood out to me.

I touched on Emma's points about her experience in south Derry. I acknowledge that there are particular constituencies where this has been a huge challenge, particularly in West Belfast. My colleague Councillor Paul Doherty has done a huge amount of work in advocating a more robust response and a twin-track — no pun intended — approach of engaging with young people and the community groups and youth groups that can reach those young people. It is important to say that, in many cases, the escalation of the misuse of scrambler bikes and e-scooters is about young kids, often but not exclusively young men, who do it for innocent reasons to begin with. It is a fun activity with their mates. However, it escalates quickly, and they often are not aware of or it is not made clear to them the consequences if things go wrong and, indeed, even if it is at a lower level, the inconvenience and the effect they are having on neighbours in their community.

Phillip Brett mentioned the issues in North Belfast. It is clearly an issue in North Belfast too, including around the Belfast hills that overlook the city. In responding to the debate, the Minister mentioned the relevant articles of the Criminal Justice (NI) Order 2008 — actually, they were first mentioned by Nuala McAllister and then touched on by the Minister — to show that there are powers that exist at the minute. It is not that there is no legal underpinning for the police to take action, whether that is enforcement around the young people who are driving such vehicles or seizing or destroying them. Those powers exist, but clearly they are not being used as effectively and as comprehensively as we would wish. We are open — that is why it is mentioned in our motion — to looking at other potential legislative interventions to tackle this scourge.

It was also said that there may not be enough time left in the mandate. It is worth going back to the point — Members from the Minister's party have made it many times — that it is one of the frustrations that, less than a year from the dissolution of the Assembly, we end up saying to ourselves again that we do not have time. It will be five years on from the previous election. If there are legislative interventions that could and should have been made to make communities safer and reduce potential loss of life through e-scooter and scrambler misuse but were not, it will be a poor judgement on the Executive and Assembly.

The use of drones is an interesting suggestion. Drones are used in a policing context in Northern Ireland. Obviously, you would want to be assured — members of the Policing Board would be able to ask questions — that their use was proportionate and was only to target specific problem areas rather than in a widespread or catch-all way.

The amendment also refers about mandatory registration at the point of sale, which means looking at regulatory as well as legislative changes. We should look at every available effective opportunity, within reason, to tackle the scourge. At the beginning of the debate, we said that many young people are engaging in the activity as a hobby or a bit of craic, and the proposals are not to demonise them. I take slight issue with Mr Carroll for saying that it is demonising young people: all Members who spoke about this as a problem were clear that young people who ride scramblers are not being demonised. It is important to say that. It is also important to say that you can engage with young people. That will be a critical part of the effort. There are clearly circumstances in which the activity escalates and the policing response is not only legitimate but probably essential. We should not dismiss that.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for giving way. I said that there was a role when a crime was being committed. That is not being disputed. It was a general comment.

Does the Member have any concerns about an increased roll-out of drones in police surveillance? It would affect young people and people from nationalist and, presumably, migrant backgrounds, who are already being stopped and searched quite heavily. Does he have any concern about the overuse of police powers in those communities, as suggested in the amendment?

Mr O'Toole: That is not the subject of the debate; there is a reference to it in the DUP amendment. As I said, if there are specific targeted uses of the drones, that would need to be tested at the Policing Board. The principle is that, if things can be used to reduce harm, they should be explored. Those are legitimate questions that should be tested by the Policing Board. It is not strictly the subject of the debate, but I recognise the concern that the Member has outlined.

The key thing is to protect people while allowing young people proper activity that directs their energy and allows them to feel included in society. We can do both of those things, but we should not trivialise the issue. People on this island have lost their lives. It can be an inconvenience — indeed, a scourge — for certain parts of this city and other places, so let us work together to take action on the issue. I hope that we will see practical delivery before this mandate breaks up. The Opposition will press for that.

Some Members: Aye.

Mr Carroll: No.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Ayes have it, and the voice of dissent has been noted.

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

Mr Durkan: I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have five minutes to propose and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. As an amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, the Business Committee has agreed that eight minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs will respond to the debate on behalf of the Minister of Justice. Mr Durkan, please open the debate on the motion.

Mr Durkan: Thanks, Deputy Speaker.

I welcome the chance to bring this important motion and address an issue that continues to cast a long and dark shadow over our communities. That drug-related deaths here have increased by nearly 50% over a decade shows the scale of the problem, but that shocking, sad and shameful statistic is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the chaos and carnage caused by drugs in our communities. It is also indicative of the Executive's failure to get a handle on a spiralling situation, whether through providing timely access to support services or proper deterrence in the justice system. Too many lives have been cut short, families shattered, children left without parents, parents left grieving for sons and daughters and communities carrying pain that often goes unseen.

The motion recognises that addiction is a complex public health issue. It is an issue wrapped up in trauma, poverty and mental illness — circumstances that can, and often do, leave people vulnerable to substance misuse and dependency in the first place. We need coordinated action across government from every Department, because addiction does not fit neatly into one departmental box. While addiction requires compassion and treatment, there must also be accountability for those who profit from misery. Across communities, families are living with the devastation caused by drugs. Those who sell illegal substances often exploit vulnerability. They target those who are already struggling, fuel dependency and poison communities.

The call for Jasmin's law has emerged from personal tragedy and from the determination of one woman — Pauline Duddy — to ensure that no other family endures the same loss and pain. Pauline is a formidable and ferocious campaigner, and she is in the Public Gallery this afternoon. She has shown extraordinary courage in turning personal grief into public advocacy following the loss of her daughter Jasmin in 2023. Pauline has given a voice to families who often feel voiceless in the face of such huge loss, and her campaign is a stark reminder that what we are discussing today is real lives, real tragedies and the need for real action.

Sentencing must do more than simply process offenders. It must protect the public and hold their confidence. It must also act as a real deterrent. When sentences are reported, the reaction from the public is usually one of anger and disbelief, with many feeling that serious drug-related crimes have resulted in little more than a slap on the wrist.

Those death dealers poison communities, exploit vulnerability, sow addiction, destroy lives and wreak devastation that filters across generations, yet, far too often, those who do appear before the courts receive suspended sentences and are often even given anonymity orders. They then return to the same streets, to the same communities that they have harmed, and the cycle continues.

The motion is about ensuring that death dealers are dealt punishment and sentences that truly reflect the harm that they cause. It is not about punishment for punishment's sake. Rather, it is about deterrence, protection and sending a clear message that those who profit from addiction and misery will face consequences that are proportionate to the damage that they inflict. I call on the Justice Minister to take that into consideration and include Jasmin's law in the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill. The amendment rightly highlights the role of paramilitary organisations and crime gangs in the drugs trade. Sadly, however, my party will not be supporting it, because we feel that the wait for a sentencing council would significantly prolong the process of securing deterrents. I believe that the Lady Chief Justice has voiced similar concerns. We cannot afford to delay action on the issue.

There is no single solution to a crisis on this scale. It requires a full government response. That starts with tougher sentencing practices that recognise the suffering that drug dealers cause. It means providing access to timely support and delivering recovery programmes and appropriate housing placements that will help rebuild lives and communities. For the sake of those whom we have lost, the families who are still grieving and the communities that are still living with that harm, the —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up.

Mr Durkan: — Executive must act.

Mr Beattie: I beg to move the following amendment:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you. The Member has five minutes in which to propose the amendment and three minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak in the debate will have three minutes. Please open the debate on the amendment.

Mr Beattie: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. First, I thank the party opposite for tabling what is a really important motion. I also thank Minister Muir for coming here on behalf of Minister Long. Please pass on our regards to her. I hope that she gets better soon.

The motion rightly expresses concern about drug-related deaths and the 47% increase that there been in a decade. It also sets out the complex issues of drug addiction and the need for joined-up thinking from the Department of Health, the Department of Education, the Department of Justice and the Department for Communities to improve prevention and recovery outcomes. We need to involve all Departments. To me, however, the main thrust of the motion is about something different. It is about those who deal illegal drugs for profit: individuals who do not care about the human cost of peddling drugs and who target the very young and the very old. They will drag people into a life of addiction in order to line their pockets. Those individuals have a negative impact on our society and should be dealt with by a robust criminal justice system.

The issue is how we deal with them in the criminal justice system when they are found guilty of dealing drugs and what should inform sentencing. On previous occasions, I have been clear that custodial sentences of less than 12 months are pointless, because very little can be done in a 12-month period. Serious offences deserve stronger custodial sentences, in line with the principles of sentencing: rehabilitation, deterrence, protecting the public and punishment. All four principles are key, but the last three need to be found within a suitable sentence for those who deal drugs. That means stiffer sentences for those who are found guilty of supplying illegal drugs; stronger sentences where drug dealers have caused death and harm; longer sentences for repeat offenders and longer probation monitoring; and extended time in custody rather than on licence and continued probation monitoring.

Pauline Duddy, who lost her daughter Jasmin, aged just 21, after she was supplied with illegal drugs, is right to call for an aggregating factor to be considered when sentencing.

We can do that and do so quickly in the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill.

Part of our amendment mentions:

We cannot ignore the role that paramilitaries and organised crime groups play in the supply of illegal drugs and their control of the drugs trade. We have to tackle that. I believe in the tactic of clear, hold and build: clear an area of organised crime gangs that deal drugs through policing, education, community resilience and a robust criminal justice system to protect the public; hold through visible and continual police presence and community support, using sentencing as a deterrent; and build on that community's resilience and opposition to drug dealers by highlighting the higher sentences for drug dealers.

Lastly, our amendment lays out the need to reform sentencing in Northern Ireland "via a sentencing council". I am disappointed that the party opposite will not support that, because it supported us in June, when I brought that suggestion to the Floor. It would involve no time lag, because provisions on a sentencing council would go in the same Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill and come out the other end of that, if there is support for it. We have such a council in England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland, but we do not have one in Northern Ireland. It is the only place that does not have a sentencing council. A sentencing council will develop sentencing guidelines, monitor and assess the impact on perpetrators and victims, and promote public understanding.

I remain of the belief that sentence credit — that is, a sentence reduction, which means that we give a drug dealer, even one who is a repeat offender or has caused death or harm, up to a quarter off their sentence — needs to be reviewed. Those who deal drugs deal death, and that will happen unless we start to take robust action against them.

I will not stand against the motion, but I commend the amendment to the House.

Ms Sheerin: In the previous debate, I commented that the particular blight on communities that we were discussing was concentrated in urban areas. The issue of substance misuse and abuse, addiction and the dealing of illegal drugs is often perceived as an urban issue, but it hides in plain sight. It is definitely an issue across all our constituencies and areas.

At the outset, I commend Pauline Duddy for her work on the issue. I have not met Pauline personally, but my colleague Ciara Ferguson relayed to me at the end of last week the sheer volume of work that Pauline has done in honour of her daughter, Jasmin. Pauline, it is commendable that you have managed to turn that pain into something that is positive for other people and that you are trying to help other young people in Jasmin's situation, so that other families do not have to suffer what you suffered. You should be highly commended for that.

The issue of substance abuse and drug and alcohol addiction in our society is multifaceted. Drug dealers are able to exist and profit from the suffering and misery of others oftentimes because there is a veil of secrecy around them. Shame and stigma exist when we talk about illegal drugs. I am talking from the perspective of someone from a rural area, where people often do not want to acknowledge that the problem exists. With the best will in the world, whilst they might not want to face that fact head-on, all that leads to is more suffering and pain in our communities, because, unless we challenge it, we will not deal with it.

I agree with many of the remarks that were made by the proposer of the motion and the proposer of the amendment about the need to deal with those disgusting individuals head-on. We have situations across the North where those people masquerade as some sort of political actors and hide behind the cloaks of paramilitary organisations. They are criminals; that is what they are. They are gangsters, and they control too many of our communities. We need to put a stop to that.

There is a massive piece of work here. A cross-departmental, multi-agency approach is required. We need to see it as a priority that victims, young people in particular, who are vulnerable to drug abuse and who get involved in those situations without an understanding of the implications and the danger to their lives, are not attacked or criminalised. We need to criminalise and punish those who are responsible: the dealers.

Mr Frew: I rise to speak to the very serious motion before us today. I thank the Opposition for bringing it to the House because I think that it will be a worthwhile debate.

First, I pay tribute to Pauline Duddy, who has corresponded with me. I am yet to meet Pauline, but I promised her that I will meet her today, and I will fulfil that promise after the debate. We have to hear what Pauline Duddy has to say. She has done a tremendous amount of work. She has worked with my Foyle colleagues up in Londonderry on what is a very important issue for her. I can only imagine what it is like to lose a daughter, but for Pauline to use that grief and campaign tirelessly to make life better for other families whose loved ones could suffer the same fate as Jasmin is admirable, and it is something that the House needs to note. We should do that in the Assembly and in the Justice Committee when we are reviewing and scrutinising the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill.

I note that the Minister has launched the sentencing review. The Department did that on 14 January. I had a wry smile to myself when I saw that sentencing review because, while it is right to review sentencing and other laws, the Minister was, at that time, about to launch her Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill. I always talk about piloting things to death, and, sometimes, we review things to death. I think that the review was a defensive manoeuvre to assure us that, "We are looking at it, and it will be in the next Bill", when, really, we should be considering it in this Bill. It is just one of those topics that the Department, the Committee and the Assembly should attest to, assess and scrutinise now, and it should be placed in the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill now.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes.

Mr Muir: Will the Member acknowledge that the area that we are considering is complex, and it is important to give due consideration to the issues concerned? The merit of having the review is to make sure that whatever legislation we make is effective and good law.

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

Mr Frew: Yes. I thank the Minister for saying that. He would say that, and the Justice Minister would say that too if she were sitting here, but the truth is this: people die on our streets because of drug use and death dealers, who peddle death, peddle drugs and peddle substances that they even make worse chemically , and prey on our young people and our most vulnerable. That is unforgivable, so something needs to be done.

We always hear, in political circles, about being tough on crime. I do not necessarily like that phrase because I think that we should be smarter on crime. Sometimes, being smarter on crime means being tougher on crime, and sometimes it just means being smarter. I think that that is one area where we should get smarter. That is where aggravation comes into it. We should be able to allow and arm our judiciary to consider aggravating factors so that people who need to go to prison can go to prison for longer.

I support the motion and, in the interests of keeping things collective, support the amendment.

Ms Egan: Substance misuse can cause undeniable harm for individuals, their loved ones and our communities. As the motion notes, there has been a 47% increase in the number of drug-related deaths registered in Northern Ireland in the past decade alone. Delving further into that data, we can see that it is about access to not just one singular drug for any one person, but access to multiple drugs. Almost three quarters of drug deaths in 2003 involved two or more substances. Those who are struggling with addiction are deserving of respect, empathy and therapeutic support.

The motion recognises that the hold that drug misuse has on vulnerable individuals is terrifying. However, those who are dealing drugs and are responsible for facilitating and supporting such a damaging intake of illegal substances need to face consequences. There is no way that we can bring back a loved one who has died following drug consumption, but we can ensure that those who made it happen are brought to justice, especially when they are so often tied to organised crime and paramilitary-related activity. For that to happen, we need to have a robust and accountable framework for how we deal with drug-related offences, especially when dealing has resulted in the death or serious injury of another person.

I commend the immense bravery of Pauline Duddy, who lost her daughter Jasmin. That has really catapulted the public conversation about how we should be bringing accountability for those who profit from the sale of drugs. We all know of Pauline's work to update Northern Ireland's approach to the enforcement of drug-related legislation, but also the need to maintain the dignity of those who are receiving treatment. To channel such personal loss into a very public quest for change is not easy, and Pauline has done that with absolute grace and dignity.

It is, of course, of note that drugs misuse policy is reserved to our counterparts at Westminster under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, but that does not mean that we should shy away from making our own positions clear as an Assembly. In that spirit, I welcome the Department of Justice having put on public record its commitment to taking forward Jasmin's mum Pauline's proposals in the scope of the ongoing sentencing review, so that those can be included in the Department's policy development and put out to public consultation.

Mr Muir: Will the Member give way?

Ms Egan: I will, yes.

Mr Muir: Does the Member understand and accept that the sentencing review is the proper forum in which to fully consider that?

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

Ms Egan: I agree with that. It is important that we get the legislation right and that it is effective.

Drug dealing is not a victimless crime, and consequences must be felt and must match public expectations. It is important that we keep pace with what those in law enforcement, including the PSNI and our judiciary, need to make that happen. On that point, I welcome the fact that the Consideration Stage of Minister Long's Justice Bill will include two additional amendments that are focused on tackling organised crime. If those proposals are accepted by the Assembly, they will create specific, bespoke offences relating to participating in and directing the criminal activities of an organised crime group. That is essential for the accountability of those who profit from the misery, suffering and, often, death of others across this region.

As the motion and the amendment both note, those who devastate lives need to face consequences. I and my Alliance colleagues welcome this conversation —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up.

Ms Egan: — and recognise Pauline's vital work.

Ms Flynn: Like others, I begin by applauding and commending Pauline Duddy for her campaign on behalf of her daughter and, potentially, every other young person, older person or individual who might be impacted by this issue. It has become Pauline's reality, because she is living it after losing her daughter. I thank her for her campaign. I have had the honour of working closely alongside some families in West Belfast, and one bereaved mother in particular, who lost her son to drugs, is in my mind. I have become very close to that family and seen the impact it has had, not only on the mother, whose life has been destroyed, but on the whole family, including her kids and grandkids. It sends a ripple effect right through a family for generations. I am sorry that they are going through that pain, but fair play and well done to Pauline for all the work that she has put in.

The issue that is being exposed is important. We need to be careful about how we discuss and debate such sensitive issues. On the one hand, we are dealing with sensitivities around the anger, frustration and disgust felt towards the criminals. The words "death pushers" and "preying on the vulnerable" have been used, because that is what drug dealers do: they prey on vulnerable people. They get younger people and vulnerable people into a mix of addiction, drug dealing and criminality. It is about how we can talk about that realistically, given what people are dealing with. There are the absolute criminals who play their part in killing people, and there are the vulnerable people who fall into the throes of addiction, whose own lives end up in the gutter. That is why they run in bad people's circles. It is about how to distinguish in each circumstance between the bad, the good and the vulnerable, which is difficult to do.

The issue that we are debating is extremely important. Pauline and families whom I am working with locally are living it. I will reflect on one wee thing. Sometimes, when you campaign on an issue and work alongside a family who are living it, you are close to it, you are working on it all the time and you understand the importance of the campaign, but I met a school —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Your time is up. You have had three minutes.

Ms Flynn: Oh, sorry. OK. Thank you.

Ms Brownlee: I thank the proposer of this important motion for bringing it to the Assembly. Drug deaths alone do not really reflect the full harm caused by substance misuse. Behind every statistic, there is a much wider story. Families are torn apart, relationships are broken and lives are lost not only through overdose but through addiction, despair and, in far too many cases, suicide. With an average of 130 drug-related deaths each week across the UK, we cannot ignore the scale of the problem.

The issue is not confined to one place. It is not limited to cities or specific communities. It affects families across every bit of Northern Ireland. We must be clear that those who profit from peddling the poison in our communities are not just low-level offenders; they are criminals. Their actions devastate and destroy families. They rob people of their futures and wreck their communities.

Addressing the crisis requires more than isolated action. Whether it is enforcement or prevention, measures can succeed only if there is a truly joined-up UK-wide approach that brings together central government and the devolved Administrations to deliver real, measurable outcomes. We support coordination across all Departments, but that must mean something in practice for the people on the ground. It must mean faster access to treatment, stronger and earlier intervention in our schools and visible and accessible support in our communities.

It is deeply concerning that, over the past decade, drug-related deaths in Northern Ireland have increased by 47%. Many of us here know people who are living with the devastating consequences of that, and many people watching the debate will have gone through the trauma of losing someone. Early intervention is, of course, key, and we must prioritise funding for prevention and early support. The Department of Health can improve outcomes for individuals and, by doing so, reduce long-term pressures on the health service. Today, even having the conversation brings to light how important it is that we support those who are struggling in the cycle of addiction.

We also must confront the issue of supply. Those convicted of dealing drugs must face consequences that reflect the true gravity of their actions. Sentencing must act as a real and meaningful deterrent and not just be a slap on the wrist. The Sentencing Bill provides an opportunity to ensure that the punishment truly fits the crime. When we look at the high rate of drug-related deaths among our young people aged from 25 to 34, we see lives cut tragically short by supply chains run by individuals who, too often, face consequences that do not reflect the harm that they have caused.

Those who supply drugs to young and vulnerable people show complete lack of regard for human life. That is where the support principle of Jasmin's law and the introduction of that factor comes in, targeting and helping people who are vulnerable.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Your time is up.

Mr Donnelly: I welcome today's motion and the opportunity to discuss the urgent need for a joined-up and proactive response to drug-related harm in Northern Ireland.

I support the principle of stronger accountability for those who profit from the supply of illegal drugs. The devastation caused by drug dealing is real, and the impact on families and communities is tragic and undeniable. Campaigns such as Jasmin's law come from unimaginable pain. That pain deserves to be heard and recognised. I understand that the Justice Minister has recently met Pauline Duddy.

While sentencing has a role to play, it cannot be the whole answer. This has to be about prevention, not just crisis intervention. The issue crosses many areas of public life, and tackling drug-related harm —.

Ms Mulholland: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr Donnelly: Certainly.

Ms Mulholland: Does the Member agree that there has to be a multidisciplinary approach and that early intervention would save money down the line and, hopefully, save lives?

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

Mr Donnelly: I absolutely agree. We need to step in early to save lives. Tackling drug-related harm and prevention is predominantly a health-related issue.

Research from Queen's University has highlighted the fact that young adults aged 25 to 34 account for the highest number of drug-related deaths in Northern Ireland, rising significantly over a decade from 13·4 per 100,000 in 2011 to 27 per 100,000 in 2021. The same research showed that the highest number of ambulance call-outs for drug-related overdose incidents for females was in the 15-19 age category while, for males, it was in the 25-29 age category. Moreover, emergency admissions data indicates that the highest number of hospital admissions for overdose incidents occurred in the 10-19 age group between 2021 and 2023. The rate of drug deaths for under-35s in Northern Ireland is alarmingly high.

The closing lines of Lyra McKee's final article before her murder in 2018, which was about "ceasefire babies", are poignant:

Drug policy reform activist Dr Órfhlaith Campbell highlighted Lyra's work as a stark reminder of the turmoil and mental health challenges faced by that generation. She also highlighted the connection between mental health issues, poverty, deprivation and substance use disorders and acknowledged that, alongside the harrowing rates of suicide, Northern Ireland has suffered significantly from drug-related deaths. Dr Campbell stated:

Globally, the tide is turning. In 2022, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, speaking at the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs, declared:

In March 2024, 60 United Nations countries collectively called for an end to the so-called war on drugs, which, in reality, has been a war on people. The policy that continues to constrain a health-led response in Northern Ireland is Westminster's Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. That legislation is not devolved.

There should be no ambiguity: the issue in Northern Ireland is profound. Campaigns such as Jasmin's law are at the very heart of ensuring that there is accountability, but we must start earlier and be prepared to act before more lives are lost. The recent Drug Deaths Taskforce report's recommendations included increased funding for the staffing of drug outreach services, especially for young people and young adults; introducing real-time drug testing and faster public alerts on dangerous substances; monitoring the emergence of synthetic opioids as an urgent public health priority; strengthening the drug and alcohol monitoring and information system (DAMIS) through the rapid testing of drug samples submitted by community and voluntary organisations; and standardising the emergency department recording of non-fatal overdoses to improve trend analysis, treatment and service planning. If we want safer communities, let us not only punish those who profit from addiction but build a system that reduces harm and prevents more families from ever having to bury a loved one in the first place.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Minister Andrew Muir to respond to the debate on behalf of the Minister of Justice. Minister, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr Muir: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I welcome the opportunity to respond to this important motion on drug-related sentencing in Northern Ireland on behalf of the Minister of Justice. The figures quoted in the motion are shocking, and the Minister of Justice is in full agreement that it is a matter of serious concern to see the number of drug-related deaths in Northern Ireland increase so significantly over the 10-year period in question. On behalf of the Justice Minister, I acknowledge the overwhelming impact that drugs can have across society. All too often, lives are blighted, with devastating consequences.

Behind the statistics are lives that did not need to be lost and families left devastated. One drug-related death is one too many.

Drug use continues to have a profound impact on people and neighbourhoods. Addressing the harm that arises is an important priority for the Minister of Justice and, indeed, for the wider Executive. The Justice Minister is therefore committed to approaches that combine prevention, support and enforcement, delivered in partnership across sectors.

The Minister is understandably focused on the criminal justice response, which includes enforcement of the law and actions aimed at reducing drug-related harm and offending in Northern Ireland. We must, however, be mindful of the fact that there is no easy solution. As is stated in the motion, issues to do with drugs cut across the whole Executive, involving, for example, the Department of Justice, the Department of Health, the Department for Communities and the Department of Education. We can succeed in improving outcomes only if we see substance use in that broader context and work collectively to target supplies and educate and raise awareness among young and vulnerable people to prevent them from turning to drugs.

Mr Butler: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr Muir: Yes.

Mr Butler: Sorry, I meant to say "Minister". I am not diminishing your function.

I do not know whether the Minister mentioned the Department for Communities, but I recognise in my area a growing concern, which is that a lot of vulnerable people who are drug users are being housed in the same premises. Often, that lends itself to an increased vulnerability, in that the predators who push drugs can put even greater pressure on them.

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for his intervention. It is critical that we have a supportive environment that enables rehabilitation. It is important that we do that across government.

While enforcement remains necessary as a means of tackling those who supply drugs, it is clear that a complementary approach is necessary. Such an approach includes focusing on harm reduction, treatment and support for those affected by drug use. The Department of Health leads on the development of a public health intervention to address problematic substance use, but, given the complexities of addressing the underlying social determinants, it is recognised that input from key partners is critical to success, with action required from those in education, safeguarding, criminal justice, housing and employment. That joint responsibility is manifested in the 10-year-old Department of Health-led substance use strategy, which is titled 'Preventing Harm, Empowering Recovery' and was co-produced by Departments, agencies, health professionals, the community and voluntary sector and service users. The strategy has specific outcomes that focus on harm reduction, including drug deaths. As part of that work, the Department of Justice is a member of the Department of Health-led substance use strategy programme board, helping to oversee and drive forward the implementation of the strategy.

As for specific actions that contribute to the delivery of the strategy, the justice system is involved in a range of initiatives. Initiatives include promoting and supporting a preventative approach to drug misuse and harm and to vulnerability issues associated with addiction through local interventions delivered through policing and community safety partnerships (PCSPs) and support hubs; supporting young people who are referred to youth justice services and their families; developing problem-solving justice approaches, such as the Substance Misuse Court; supporting offenders in the prison environment; and supporting individuals under supervision through a range of targeted Probation Board services.

The Department of Justice also supports the organised crime task force (OCTF), which is a unique partnership that supports law enforcement, relevant partners and wider civic society. An example of the work of the OCTF's drugs subgroup is its oversight of the Northern Ireland contribution to Operation Pangaea, which is an annual global Interpol operation to safeguard public health and to disrupt and take down criminal activity relating to the trafficking of illegal pharmaceuticals and medical devices that have been purchased online and distributed via the postal system.

The link between paramilitary groups and the illegal drugs trade, as reflected in the amendment, is also well documented. Paramilitary groups are criminal gangs that seek to exert control in communities through drugs, violence and intimidation, exploiting vulnerability for their own financial gain. 'Drug Related Intimidation in Northern Ireland', the report commissioned by the Executive programme on paramilitarism and organised crime (EPPOC) and published last year, is clear that paramilitary groups are perpetrators of drug-related intimidation in Northern Ireland, are operating as organised crime gangs and are engaged in drug supply and enforcement. We know that organised paramilitary gangs deliberately exploit vulnerable individuals, drawing them into drug use and drug supply, after which they maintain control of them through intimidation, coercion and the threat of harm, including threats related to drug deaths. EPPOC plays a crucial role in addressing the harms caused by paramilitary groups and is leading our preventative effort.

Although law enforcement partners work hard to combat the sale of those illicit substances and remove them from our streets, organised crime groups continue to try to line their own pockets. Those criminals have no regard for individuals or the communities that they purport to protect. We all have a role to play in protecting our communities, and, on behalf of the Justice Minister, I encourage anyone who has any information on that type of criminality to report it to the police.

Members will be aware that the Justice Minister is creating two new offences in the Justice Bill to tackle serious and organised crime. The offences, which will be added by amendment at Consideration Stage, are participating in the criminal activities of an organised crime group and directing the criminal activities of an organised crime group. That legislation is intended to provide law enforcement with a further tool to tackle organised crime and to criminalise those who, at any level, are involved in the commission and undertaking of serious organised crime. It is important that, in any area of criminal law, the offences and penalties available to the judiciary act as an adequate deterrent and properly reflect the harm caused by the offence.

In relation to drug supply and possession offences, Members will be aware that drugs misuse policy is a reserved matter, with significant penalties for offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, including the possibility of a life sentence for the most serious production and supply offences. Therefore, any changes to classifications and statutory sentencing maxima would require either Westminster legislation or the consent of the Secretary of State if taken forward by an Assembly Bill. It is also important to note that the court will take into account aggravating factors when sentencing offenders for those offences, including where there is evidence of supply to vulnerable persons, including children, as a possible aggravating factor.

The Justice Minister is aware of concerns around the adequacy of sentencing in specific cases of drug offences in this jurisdiction and is keenly aware of the Jasmin’s law campaign, which seeks to introduce a statutory aggravating factor that would apply when the court is sentencing someone for a drugs supply offence and it can be proven that they have supplied drugs to a vulnerable person, which has resulted in serious injury or death. The Justice Minister has asked me to commend Pauline Duddy, Jasmin's mother, for her dedication and tireless campaigning on the issue. Minister Long has met Pauline on several occasions and is continually impressed by her tenacious advocacy for victims of drug dealers. I, as Minister, personally thank her today.

Furthermore, the Minister of Justice shares her desire to ensure that the sentencing framework available for those offences adequately reflects the severity of the crimes and the impact that they have on the community. Therefore, based on the strength of the Jasmin’s law campaign, Minister Long's review of sentencing policy will consider current sentencing practice in Northern Ireland in relation to drugs misuse offences, and departmental officials are undertaking research to better understand how sentencing is operating. The review will also conduct an assessment of sentencing guidelines mechanisms, including the utility of a sentencing guiding council, as proposed in the amendment tabled today. If the review suggests that changes to current sentencing arrangements may be necessary, any proposals will be subject to public consultation, with a view to informing legislative proposals in the next mandate. Subject to resources, it is anticipated that public consultation on policy proposals arising from the review will take place in 2027.

I have limited time, but I will seek to wrap up my contribution. The Justice Minister believes that the sentencing review is an appropriate mechanism to give full and informed consideration to these important matters, rather than rushing to legislate in this mandate. Although the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill already contains other statutory aggravators and amendments to the sentencing framework and may appear to provide an appropriate vehicle for legislating quickly, it is critical to remember that those clauses have been drafted following a thorough policy development process. Minister Long is of the view that undertaking adequate research and consultation into the proposals in the motion and the amendment is the appropriate approach going forward.

In closing, the Justice Minister welcomes the opportunity to discuss this important issue and looks forward to working with Members collectively to strengthen the government response to drug misuse and supply, both in the wider public health response and in the strengthening of enforcement arrangements.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Minister. I call Robbie Butler to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. You have up to three minutes.

Mr Butler: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am going to do this slightly back to front. Usually, when we make a winding-up speech, we wait until the last part of our speech to credit those who have spoken, but I will do that first because I thought that an incredible amount of very powerful testimony was delivered today.

I will reference Pauline Duddy, who, evidently, is in the Public Gallery. Every Member who spoke paid tribute to Pauline's courage, tenacity and bravery in trying to get us as legislators to agree that Jasmin's law is absolutely worthy not just of consideration but of application at the appropriate time. I do believe that it will happen. I think that it was Órlaithí Flynn, from Sinn Féin, who said that Pauline does not speak for just herself and Jasmin but for the many families who have had that misery heaped upon them.

I thank the mover of the motion, Mr Mark Durkan. He started by talking powerfully about the profit from misery and the exploitation of the vulnerable. I think that Pauline must be from his constituency, so I thank him for his work on that. Sometimes in debates, people pop up, and you just know that they are absolutely interested in the topic. I sit on some all-party groups with a number of Members — the mental health all-party group, the addiction and dual diagnosis all-party group and the suicide prevention all-party group — and those Members are the very people who are here today. They are here for the victims but they want to see justice. A point that my party colleague made was that we are here to serve the public, but what do the public think when they see a sentence handed down to someone who dealt drugs that led to a death? Rightly so, they are never happy. That is why the debate is happening.

I thank my colleague Doug Beattie, who sits on the Justice Committee, for his articulate moving of the amendment, which does bring value because it points out that we are not reinventing the wheel. In other jurisdictions, there is a sentencing council, which should perhaps be looked at. Emma Sheerin, thank you very much for rightly pointing out that this is not just an urban problem. I was here during the previous debate, when you pointed out that perhaps e-scooters were not such a big problem in the countryside, but drugs are nefarious. They leach into every aspect of our community, and where the vulnerable reside, the pushers will go. It is as simple as that.

Paul Frew, Chair of the Justice Committee, was very good. He talked about how dealers prey on the vulnerable and our young people. He introduced a concept that was new to me, which was to be smart on crime rather than simply being tougher. Connie Egan, thank you again, and Órlaithí and Cheryl Brownlee, again, thank you for your contributions.

Speaking as someone who once worked in Maghaberry prison and understood that there were people who ended up in prison, not just the pushers but sometimes very vulnerable drug users, I think that we need to be sensible when we create legislation so that we do not inadvertently punish those who do not need to be punished. However, we have to be explicit and of one voice in saying that if you are a drug dealer, you are a stain on the society of Northern Ireland. You are creating victims in the very families that we represent, but your days are gone because we are going to change the response.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Colin McGrath to make a winding-up speech to conclude the debate on the motion. You have up to five minutes.

Mr McGrath: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, and thank you to everybody who contributed to the debate. It is always good towards the end of a couple of days of debate that we get everybody agreeing and on the same page, more or less, on issues, especially when they are so relevant to people's lives.

Over the weekend, I received an email from a constituent in Downpatrick who asked me this simple question: "When are politicians going to address the elephant in the room?". He said that the elephant was drug consumption, not potholes or housing, not the usual issues that dominate our feed and the emails that we get. He said that there was a sense that not enough was being done about drugs. I updated him by saying that often the work that is done to challenge those issues is not very visible. When people pass information to the police, and even to politicians to pass on to the police, it may not lead to an immediate arrest on their street, but it could be the intelligence that leads to major seizures elsewhere, so that local action does feed regional disruption.

However, that reassurance goes only so far, because when people see drugs still flowing, intimidation continuing and dealers operating with impunity, they begin to lose faith. When those same dealers appear in court and walk away with what looks like a slap on the wrist, people just lose hope. Perception matters absolutely in those instances, and facts matter. The fact is that drug-related deaths have risen by 47% over the past decade. Thousands of people access substance misuse services every year, and almost 40% of people know that drug-related intimidation is happening in their community. That should stop us in our tracks. We must call out those who are driving that. It is about organised criminal gangs, many of them with paramilitary links, that exploit vulnerability, enforce debt through fear and profit from the destruction of lives. They are predators in our communities. Sentencing absolutely matters. If you profit from addiction, misery and death, your punishment must reflect that harm. That is why we support Jasmin's law and thank Pauline for her work in Jasmin's memory. It is essential that we, as legislators, deliver on that work.

I will finish where I began, which was with an email from a man in Downpatrick asking me when we would address the elephant in the room. Let the message from today be that we are going to address the elephant in the room: to challenge those people in our community, to try to rid ourselves of those dealers and to make sure that, if they try to deal and pass those drugs on, they will feel the full force of the law as a result. Again, I am delighted that there is support from around the House on the issue. There is a slight difference on timescale, but we will not divide the House on that, because we are here today to be united in the message that we send out. We just want it to be done as quickly as possible; we know that it sometimes takes a little bit longer.

I thank everyone for participating in the debate, supporting the motion and sending a unified message from the House. As Robbie said, eloquently as always, if you are dealing drugs in our community, it is only a matter of time: we will get you.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): In conjunction with the Business Committee, the Speaker has given leave to Carál Ní Chuilín to raise the matter of multidisciplinary teams in GP practices in North Belfast. Carál, you have up to 15 minutes.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

First, I thank the Business Committee for selecting this topic for an Adjournment debate. I am delighted to see the Minister here in what is his second week on the trot of dealing with issues relating to North Belfast. That is much appreciated. Also, some of the GPs from North Belfast are in the Public Gallery for the debate.

I am sure that if we were to put "GP" into a search of the Hansard public record, we would get thousands of hits. One thing that we are concerned about is that GP practices in North Belfast were supposed to have their multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) fully rolled out at the beginning of April, but that has not yet been done. Priority was given to mental health services, which we all support. For anybody for who does not know, multidisciplinary teams are about the inclusion of a mental health nurse, a physio and a social worker in a busy practice.

Take one practice in Clifton Street as an example. It has 10,000 patients. It is in one of the most deprived areas of Belfast, in the North and maybe even on this island. It is referred to as a "deep end" practice, which is Health Department speak for its needing to be prioritised and resourced accordingly. The Minister is on the record about that, as, indeed, are many other Members. Look at BT15. If you live around Carlisle Circus, the New Lodge or the lower Shankill, your life expectancy is a lot less than it is if you live further up the Antrim Road, which is still within BT15.

Our GP practices have been at the coalface for a long time. GPs often contact me, as an elected rep, about housing, letters of support for their patients to access surgery, getting proper community support for mental health services and supporting families through autism and ADHD medication. I am sure that it is the same for many Members. The difficulty in North Belfast is that none of us wants to say that we are in the most deprived ward on the island. Everyone's focus is on patients' needs, so that is a good place to start. The GPs' patients are our constituents. We all focus on that.

Clifton Street is not the only surgery that has difficulties, but the difficulty for Clifton Street surgery is that it is prepared to develop a bigger site to encompass the services that are part of a multidisciplinary team, as well as any additional services, and land has been identified at Girdwood, but that land is currently held by the Minister for Communities. Minister, I would appreciate it if you could speak to the Minister for Communities about that. That is an example of a practice on a busy road in a busy area that is on an interface. It has patients from across the constituency and tries to help everybody, regardless, but it is not working. That is a practical example of something that could be done.

I am envious of some of our colleagues in other parts of Belfast, particularly in the west. They have told me about the roll-out of the multidisciplinary team approach in practices. I made it my business to speak to one of the practices in West Belfast, and I was told about what is working. I was also told that, at the minute, everything is dependent on resources, but it is working well. When we look at a joined-up approach and ending silos — we are all familiar with that language — I like the idea that that would be a one-stop shop for people, most of whom would be able to walk through the door and back out again. In West Belfast, a lot of them walk in, get awful news and then get wrap-around service support, and we want to see that in North Belfast.

I appreciate the fact that resources are tight — we all do. I also appreciate that, when it comes to health, we have to fight our corner. I very respectfully say to the Minister that I understand that there is a need to put money into the private sector in order to get waiting lists down for people who are in agony as they wait for operations. We all get that. However, that investment is front-loaded for cases that are almost non-problematic, even though the surgeries are quite severe and people are very stressed out about getting them. We need to remember that the investment needs to be front-loaded towards the point at which people need it: our health and social care system, which is free at the point of need and free at the point of delivery. We all cherish that.

We are lucky, in North Belfast, to work with amazing GPs who, for the most part, in their practices look not just at the person but at all their circumstances. They are proactive in trying to get people the best support that they can. They almost act like social workers, as it is. We can claim some of that as well; we recognise part of that. As an elected representative, however, I want — as do the other representatives who are here in the Chamber — to fight our corner in North Belfast to make sure that we all get the best for GPs and patients.

The Minister will be well aware of the figures, so I will not recite them, but I will talk about the levels of complexity faced by some. It is no coincidence that, in areas of deprivation, there is a clear link between poverty and ill health. That link is well established and accepted. There is also a recognition, by all of us as political reps, that this place is underfunded compared with our level of need. We are at the bottom of the ladder when compared with Scotland, Wales and England. That is not good enough. We need to get more money in order to make sure that money goes to front-line services, where it is needed, and that it is prioritised.

Within that, you have GPs who, in the whole big Health bubble, are fighting their corner, and we are here today to fight their corner, too, particularly when it comes to dealing with mental health and the legacy of the conflict, which now affects four generations.

I know that it is the case across the board, but, compared with many other constituencies, North Belfast was decimated — absolutely decimated — by political conflict. That is now having an impact on third and fourth generations. I am seeing the impact of the conflict on grandparents, parents, grandchildren and now great-grandchildren. I am not medically trained, but I recognise trauma. Given that some people who go to a GP practice do not even realise that they are traumatised or are suffering from anxiety and stress, we need to give our GPs the time, the flexibility and the space to get help and support to where it is needed and to make sure that that is consistent at the point where people can get it. Right treatment, right time, right place. The best door to walk through without there being any stigma is that of a doctors' surgery. No one knows what you are going in for, and it is none of their business. When you go into a GP surgery, you should not then have to walk round 12 doors to find out which one you go through.

That is why we want to have this debate today. We want to make sure that Clifton Street Surgery and all the other surgeries that have come to us have their ask for support through the full roll-out of multidisciplinary teams met. Those surgeries have 10,000 patients, who are our constituents. Over 50% of them are living in chronic pain, and over 50% of them will probably die well before their time, because of the economic, social and political circumstances in which they grew up. The best thing that we can do is equip our GPs with what they need in order to provide the best care for their patients and our constituents. I will leave it at that.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you. All other Members will have approximately six minutes.

Mr Kingston: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the issue of multidisciplinary teams in North Belfast, and I thank Carál for bringing the matter to the Floor of the Assembly. MDTs are widely recognised as being central to the future sustainability of primary healthcare. There is no doubt that MDTs represent an important reform of our health system. By embedding professionals such as physiotherapists, social workers and mental health practitioners directly into GP practices, we are moving towards a more preventative, accessible and patient-centred model of care.

I welcome the fact that £61 million was secured for MDTs from the transition fund for the next four years, and I particularly welcome the fact that North Belfast has been included in this phase of the roll-out. The Health Minister confirmed in a reply to me that the plan was to introduce MDTs in 18 of the 21 GP practices in North Belfast in the last financial year and the remainder in this financial year, subject to premises' readiness, with the aim of providing early intervention, reducing health inequalities and improving well-being through accessible, high-quality services. However, while the ambition is clear, the reality on the ground in North Belfast is more complex.

A number of GP practices in North Belfast that I engaged with agree that MDTs are the right reform but said that roll-out in North Belfast has been too slow, inconsistent and under-resourced. Roll-out depends on premises' readiness, workforce availability in those disciplines and funding. Practices have reported a lack of social workers and mental health staff and delays to or lack of clarity on funding, and many GP buildings are not fit for MDT expansions. As a result, they cannot recruit, plan or deliver the intended benefits. They also highlight the impact of cross-boundary demand from West Belfast in particular, which, of course, has a high level of demand itself.

That has placed an extra strain on the delivery of MDTs, distorting planning and overloading certain practices.

Where MDTs are working well, they reduce GP workload, provide faster access, especially to physiotherapy, and provide early intervention and better patient outcomes. It is the right model, and the progress is welcome. However, a key challenge is that delivery is conditional and not guaranteed. Many practices have not yet experienced a full roll-out of MDT services, and there is growing frustration, not with the model but with the pace and consistency of delivery. From what I hear, there are simply not enough social workers on the ground at present, but that cannot become a reason for continued delay.

I will highlight the issue of funding reaching GP practices. Practices tell me that, even where roll-out is planned, funding does not always flow in a timely or practical way, and that makes it difficult to plan, recruit and deliver services effectively. I am also deeply concerned about what, I am told, is a current freeze on a full MDT roll-out, which, I understand, is to remain in place until January next year. The Minister can confirm what is happening in that regard. It must be urgently addressed, because, even when approval is given, recruitment takes time. In many cases, the roles are highly skilled. Staff must be recruited from other parts of the system, and notice periods are often three months or more, so any delay today becomes a delay in delivery many months down the line.

Despite those challenges, I want to be clear that having MDTs is the right approach. Where they are operating well, as I said, they reduce pressure on GPs and provide better outcomes, but progress must now match ambition. I therefore call on the Minister to lift the current freeze on MDT roll-out as a matter of urgency; to ensure that funding is released directly and promptly to GP practices; to invest in workforce planning, particularly for social workers and those in mental health roles; to provide a clear, time-bound and full roll-out across all North Belfast practices; and to ensure fairness and capacity, particularly in areas facing cross-boundary demand.

Our GP practices are under sustained pressure. They are doing everything that they can to support their communities, but they cannot do it alone. There must be no more delays. Our practices need that support now. North Belfast cannot wait.

Miss McAllister: I thank my colleague from North Belfast for securing today's Adjournment debate.

When the Assembly got back up and running after the 2022 election — two years later, in February 2024 — one of the first announcements from the Minister was on the expansion and further roll-out of MDTs, subject to resources being available. We were glad to hear that North Belfast would be part of the next roll-out, so it is disappointing that there has been delay. We are, however, hopeful that the roll-out will happen in North Belfast soon. The GP federation in North Belfast has over 110,000 patients to see across 20 or 21 practices. Because I sit on the Health Committee and from a constituency perspective, I have been making my way around a lot of the practices. My colleague mentioned the Clifton Street surgery, which I visited back in April.

Following that visit, I asked a question of the Minister in the Chamber about capital infrastructure support for MDTs, and we later spoke at the Committee about how GP practices would be getting such support. I believe that it was the GP improvement scheme that was supposed to help facilitate the roll-out of multidisciplinary teams, but it seems as though something has gone wrong, because a number of practices are physically unable to fit all the teams and the people who are needed on-site into their practice. We can hopefully get an update on that from the Minister. I understand that, at the time, there was a little bit of a wait for transformation funding. Following the announcement that it had been successful the second time, I had hoped that there would be an update on the GP infrastructure support scheme.

We have raised the point many times in the Health Committee that, if we are to see it successfully rolled out across all areas, we need GP practices to get the support to do that.

As well as Clifton Street surgery, I have been to other surgeries in that vicinity, such as North Queen Street surgery and Carrick Hill medical centre, and they all have the same thing in common; they all have patients from areas of multiple deprivation. They all see patients who have comorbidities and therefore cannot just go and see a doctor about one issue. Often, those patients have many issues. Many of them are also on waiting lists for other services that they could avail themselves of in-house if those services were available. It is important progress, and I am happy to support it as part of the Minister's shift-left agenda, to get more support to our GPs so that it is not just the doctors and nurses who service the patients there.

I have concerns, however, that, in one North Belfast ward in particular, Water Works, one in 20 children are in care or have had a care order placed on them. I am sure that there are others on the at-risk register across other wards in North Belfast. The figure is quite high, particularly in the areas of multiple deprivation. That means that there is a greater need for social workers in North Belfast than in other constituencies across Northern Ireland. One thing that, we hope, will happen with the MDTs is that we will have social workers in some practices. However, we know that they will just move from the family and children support services to GP services, and that will just create gaps. It will not fill posts and create additional jobs, because people will just shift and shuffle around. That is why the workforce aspect is so important, particularly when it comes to social work and GPs.

More and more GPs want to move to part-time practice because they simply cannot facilitate the current hours that are expected of them. Even those who are part-time are doing hours that would be considered full-time in other jobs. All that places an extra burden on GPs. They are managers and are trying to navigate the whole process of incorporating the multidisciplinary teams as well as trying to service their patients every day.

Minister, we have spoken about access to GPs so many times in the Chamber. This debate is not about that, but it is important: we cannot emphasise enough how many of us, in all our constituency offices, are contacted about access to GPs. The simple fact is that there are not enough of them. There are not enough GPs to serve the number of patients who need to be seen, with the increase in ailments that people have.

Therefore, while I support the roll-out of multidisciplinary teams and think that it is the right thing to do, we need to see it done right. We need to ensure that we have the social workers, pharmacists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and whoever is needed in practices and that they are not simply shifting from other areas to cause pressure elsewhere in the system and are there to properly service the community.

Before I finish, another thing that I want to highlight is that I share my two colleagues' concerns about mental health issues. We cannot overemphasise how important it is that we have mental health practitioners in GP practices in North Belfast, so that we ensure that GPs are not the only people who are able to help those in distress and need. That is seriously impacting on suicide rates in North Belfast and putting stress and pressure on the community and voluntary sector.

In short, I support the roll-out of MDTs in North Belfast. It is disappointing that it has not yet happened and the timeline is moving on. We need the support. If the Minister can touch on that GP improvement scheme and whether we can support practices, that would be helpful.

Mr Kelly: I think that we will get everybody in agreement here. Although my colleague Carál said that she did not want to go through some of the statistics, it is worth bringing them up. I will go through some of that, but I will keep within your parameters, Mr Deputy Speaker.

All Members — not just those who are here — are acutely aware of the need to transform public services. We are talking about North Belfast, but, of course, that is not to ignore the fact that there are other areas of deep deprivation. North Belfast is a particular case. We all want to transform public services to ensure equal access to first-class services such as healthcare. That involves detailed planning and execution by Departments in order to navigate what has become an increasingly difficult budgetary position. We are all very aware of the budgetary situation. However, we have to try our best within that budget. That will continue so long as Westminster funds the North below its evidenced level of need.

MDTs were intended to be a key component of health service transformation. Since the initial launch in 2018, however, the roll-out has been inconsistent, and many areas remain without provision. The practice in question has 10,000 patients, who come from communities that experience many of the health issues that I will cover in a minute. It is a matter of serious concern that North Belfast, with such high levels of deprivation and health inequality, is one such area. The practice has been categorised by the Minister as a "deep end" practice, serving the most socially and economically deprived population. It is often defined as "blanket deprivation", meaning that 44% to 88% of its patients live in the most deprived areas.

The need for effective MDTs in North Belfast could not be clearer. For context, it is worth covering some of the disparities. North Belfast is in the top three constituencies in the North when it comes to premature mortality rates, ranking second for males and third for females under the age of 75. In the Oldpark ward, which takes in areas such as the New Lodge, Cliftonville, Oldpark and Ardoyne, the statistics are even more severe. The Oldpark ward has the lowest life expectancy in Belfast for men and the second lowest for women. Suicide rates per 100,000 are 70% higher for Oldpark than the regional average.

When we compare standardised death rates for the Oldpark ward against the regional average rates, we see that the treatable mortality rates are 50% higher; the avoidable mortality rate is nearly 100% higher; and the preventable mortality rate is 100% higher. North Belfast consistently scores higher than average in many other categories, including alcohol-related hospital admissions, obesity and low birthweight. Those stark percentages, alongside the trauma and the legacy of the conflict, which Carál spoke about, only reinforce the dire need for the swift and full implementation of an MDT in order to serve the high unmet demand for mental health services and social interventions.

The issues that face general practice and patients who are accessing GP services have been well rehearsed in the Chamber. GPs are under increasing pressure, and the implementation of MDTs should serve to alleviate at least some of the pressures on the wider service. However, as noted in the 2024 Audit Office report, a lack of available qualified staff, as others have mentioned, is a key constraint when it comes to the wider roll-out.

Added to that is the need for sufficient physical space to house the teams, which, again, has hampered their full establishment. The roll-out in North Belfast would offer mental health practitioners, social workers and physiotherapists, but, due to a lack of space, the practice has been able to take up only 50% of the mental health practitioner allocation. Because of restricted space, it has been unable to provide any rooms for social workers and physiotherapy to date. There have been ongoing discussions with the Department for Communities about a move to Girdwood since May 2019, despite cross-party support. It is essential that that move happens as soon as possible, especially given the wider development of the Girdwood site that is being progressed by Belfast City Council, as, I think, the Minister will know. Ultimately, that has presented challenges that prevent people, some of whom are already experiencing some of the worst health inequalities, from accessing and benefiting from proper healthcare and support.

The Minister and the Department frequently and with justification point towards the difficult fiscal position that we are in. However, investment in the service will deliver genuine transformation to health service delivery. It will not only reduce future costs and deliver savings but improve health outcomes. That is where our focus needs to remain. Delivering improved health outcomes is not just for those who can afford to access private healthcare.

Mr McGrath: I am delighted to speak on behalf of the SDLP in my second North Belfast Adjournment debate. I am the son of an Ardoyne man, and I am a former resident of Ashley Gardens on the Antrim Road, off Somerton Road and Lansdowne Road, so I feel like I am almost a local. I have been so impressed by these Adjournment debates that I have managed to secure one next week for South Down, so any North Belfast Members who would like to come along will be more than welcome.

We know that MDTs have the capacity to transform primary care. They ease the pressures on GPs by offering a range of services in health centres. It is also about quicker access to those services. I remember visiting one of the GP practices in my area, and the GP was really clear about MDTs. He said, "Do you know what? I am not an expert in knees, joints and moving legs. That is why we have a physio. If somebody needs to get those issues seen to, it is better to get them directly to the physio rather than have them come to me and for me to then refer them to the physio, which adds an extra layer". Having that ability in-house to make referrals quickly helps people to get treatment much quicker and more locally, and it helps to address health inequalities. The vast need to address the health inequalities in North Belfast has been eloquently put by others here today.

Of course, the system has not been fully realised; it has only been partially implemented. I spoke at the South Belfast GP Federation's annual meeting last year, and GPs from one surgery in South Belfast talked about how difficult they found it when one GP practice, which was basically a couple of hundred yards away, was able to offer a raft of additional services, yet theirs was not because it was on the border with an area that had MDT services. That inequality in its own right was felt very sorely by those practitioners who were not able to offer that range of services. The jealousy tipped towards those GPs who were able to offer those services, so it is something that is absolutely seen as being valued in the medical fraternity. Therefore, it is something that I would like to see pushed, rolled out and offered as far as possible. I know that that is an aspiration. I appreciate that the Minister does not have a storeroom of social workers, practice nurses and physios down in the Department that he can just hand out. That is the aspiration. It is about how quickly we can make that a reality and how quickly we can move on.

If there is full roll-out and partial roll-out, that does not represent fairness or equality of service provision. We do not want to see that two-tier system, as has been referenced, where some can get access to services and others cannot. Somewhere in the region of half a million people across the North are not part of areas that have MDTs. Those people are being left behind, unable to access the full range of services without having to go through extra hoops and going to other secondary care locations. While today's debate is important, we must not lose sight of areas that need to have that MDT service introduced. If we are serious about reforming our health service, about that shift left and about getting treatment for people as close as possible to their homes so that they do not have to travel, the MDT model provides an excellent opportunity to do those things, but that will mean full roll-out, sustainable funding and additional resources. That is probably where there will be some problems. I am happy to support that for North Belfast.

I offer a slight apology, like Carál did last week. I have to go and chair the all-party group (APG) on youth participation in the Senate Chamber, so I will not get to hear the Minister's remarks, but I have a fair idea of what he will say. We will continue to provide help and support where we can, especially for North Belfast, which is my second home.

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

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Thank you. Let me begin by trumping Mr McGrath, because North Belfast was my first home. I spent my first five years in a house on the Lansdowne Road off the Antrim Road.

I welcome every opportunity to discuss MDTs, particularly in North Belfast, so I thank the Member for bringing that into focus. I also welcome the GPs who are here to listen to the debate. I understand entirely that, while MDTs are really good for patients and service users, they do not ease the burden for GPs one iota. In fact, it can be argued that they make life more difficult. Do you want to refer somebody to a physio in another setting, or do you want to manage a physio who has joined your team? Arguably that can make life a little more difficult for GPs, but it is really good for patients.

There is an issue with many GP surgery premises not having the space to expand to take multidisciplinary team members on board. I say to the Member that I will contact the Minister for Communities about the Clifton Street surgery to see whether his Department can give some much-needed certainty on Girdwood. I applaud the Member's devotion to her constituents, which I saw in action at the weekend on another matter.

MDTs are currently available in seven federation areas, and we continue to increase the service in a further five areas, securing a rate of 63·5% of patients being handled in primary care in those federation areas. We are avoiding referrals to secondary care, and, personally, I am delighted that that is already happening. As it is at a local level, the model is responsive, accessible and consistent with my desire to shift left into prevention and early intervention.

Members will, I hope, be aware of my commitment to reform and transformation. I am particularly pleased that we got the £61 million that Mr Kingston referred to from the transformation fund for the next phase of the MDT programme. That gives us the opportunity to commit to expanding the implementation of the programme. Indeed, the North Belfast Federation is currently benefiting from that additional resource, as it continues with its MDT implementation journey. I have to say to Mr Kingston that he needs to have a word with his source, because the idea that that has been frozen is simply not true. We are continuing to implement over the three years of the plan; there is no freeze.

Phase 1 of the implementation plan runs from the 2025-26 financial year to 2029-2030 and will see MDTs being completed in 12 federation areas, including North Belfast. The remaining five will continue with the MDT implementation plan, which runs through to 2033. I know that that is a long time, and I share Members' frustration that it is taking so long to roll it out fully. Mr McGrath talked about the inequity of it being in some places and not in others. Ms Ní Chuilín will be aware, from her work in the former Ad Hoc Committee on a Bill of Rights, of the concept of progressive realisation, and that is where we are at with MDTs.

As of 31 December 2025, working with the GP Federations, practices and the local trusts, my Department had implemented the MDT model across 136 GP practices. We have increased access for 928,000 patients, which is 46% of Northern Ireland's population, to one or more core MDT services, and that includes a total of 276 MDT staff and an additional 107 nursing staff across the region. Some £2·5 million has been invested across the five federation areas that are next to benefit from the roll-out in 2025-26. Approximately £500,000 of that has been spent in the North Belfast Federation area.

The roll-out is well under way in North Belfast. During quarter 4 of the last financial year, 8·4 whole-time equivalent staff were recruited to MDTs, which means that about 90,000 patients currently have access to an MDT in North Belfast. In the current year, a further 10·5 whole-time equivalent staff will be recruited to North Belfast practices, further increasing the number of patients who can access those vital services. That will increase year-on-year, in line with agreed implementation plans, resulting in an additional 45·6 whole-time equivalent staff being employed in North Belfast, with an additional 114,000 patients having access to all services by the 2029-2030 financial year.

The Department of Health acknowledges that the workforce is a key enabler for success, and the recruitment plan is cognisant of the very real challenges in the labour market and the vacancy and recruitment issues that are being experienced already across the trust.

The funding for MDT roll-out is in place, and we are moving as swiftly as we can, given the labour market challenges. To that end, the transformation funding supports critical planned investment for university training places above and beyond the existing intakes, providing a workforce pipeline in key professions that the MDT programme recruits from. Ninety places were agreed annually for 2024-25 and 2025-26. Those additional places comprise 40 social workers, 30 physiotherapists, 10 occupational therapists and 10 mental health nursing places. Phase 2 of the MDT implementation plan will run from 2029-2030 to 2032-33. It will see the completion of phase 1 federation areas and the full roll-out of the remaining five areas.

It is anticipated that the annual MDT consultations will increase to over one million by March of 2033, with over 222,000 consultations in Belfast alone as a whole. That will be a significant contribution to providing closer-to-home access to much-needed services that can be accessed directly through the GP practice. Currently, 51% of referrals to MDT professionals are made directly without the need to go through a GP, freeing up valuable time for appointments.

The MDT programme is an integral part of the reform of health services. It brings services to a local level and reinforces the value of general practice in delivering such services in primary care. Historically, people across Northern Ireland have revered and respected the role of the GP. Indeed, many continue to see the GP as the first point of contact when they feel the need for healthcare intervention. It is right for people to focus on general practice as a front door to health services. However, with the introduction of MDT specialists, people can access them through the GP route without the need to see the GP.

The programme will not sit in isolation of wider primary care reform. It is an integral part of the new approach to healthcare through the introduction and implementation of the neighbourhood healthcare model.

Mr Chambers: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Nesbitt: Yes.

Mr Chambers: Does the Minister agree that the lack of an agreed multi-year Budget or, indeed, a one-year Budget is preventing him from moving forward with many worthy projects that will contribute to better outcomes for patients, not only, quite rightly, in North Belfast but across Northern Ireland?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member. Yes, the uncertainty of not having the Budget is resulting, for example, in us losing momentum. We had good momentum in tackling the waiting lists, so, yes, I would welcome the certainty of a Budget as soon as possible, and preferably a multi-year Budget.

With my remaining time, I will touch on a couple of other points. Nuala McAllister talked about support for GPs. I hope that she is aware that we are now negotiating the next contract with the BMA's Northern Ireland GP committee. That can certainly be part of a broader consideration of how we support GPs.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, there is some flexibility here, if you have remarks that you wish to finish.

Mr Nesbitt: Thank you, Deputy Speaker.

GPs, amongst others, will be at the heart of the delivery of the neighbourhood model.

The final thing that I will say is that the MDT roll-out in North Belfast will continue. There is no freeze. I know that it will be well utilised by local communities. It will continue to embed the important general practice for its people, and it will ensure that the GP practice continues to be the heart of the local community.

I will finish with some words on community, because Carál Ní Chuilín talked about North Belfast and the legacy of the conflict. Certainly, if you take a map of the conflict and fill in the hot spots of the conflict measured by shootings, killings and bombings, and if you then take a contemporaneous map of the hot spots of mental health issues measured by completed suicide, attempted suicide, substance misuse and all the rest, you have a match, and North Belfast is as bad as it gets. I am very aware of that. I will not be around for the next mandate, but if I were, I would encourage the next Executive to think about the social determinants of health and ill health — poverty, housing, jobs, education — and about the social determinants of educational underachievement and of economic inactivity. They are the same social determinants across those three great evils, which are really sticky problems. If we came together as an Executive and an Assembly and tried to tackle them, think of the impact that we could have in areas of deprivation. Think of the real change that we could make to people's lives, how that would make us think of ourselves as legislators and how the public would think of this place. It would be a magnificent thing to do, and I encourage those who will be here after May 2027 to give it consideration.

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