Official Report: Monday 27 April 2026

Mr Speaker: Before we commence today's business, I advise Members that the Minister of Justice is unable to be in the Chamber today. Her oral ministerial statement on the review of the Katie Simpson case has therefore been rescheduled for Tuesday 5 May.

Mr Speaker: Timothy Gaston has been given leave to make a statement on the car bomb at Dunmurry police station that fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. He and all other Members who are called to speak will have three minutes. The usual arrangements for Members to remain standing in their place apply.

Mr Gaston: It will be lost on no one that the bombing of Dunmurry PSNI station took place just days after a debate in Belfast City Hall about the statue of a convicted bomber. One cannot with any credibility defend furniture shop bomber Bobby Sands and then condemn the PSNI station bombers just days later. Both actions were reckless and evil. Indeed, the car that was used in the Dunmurry bombing was hijacked in Twinbrook, where the illegal Bobby Sands statue is located. The self-styled "First Minister for all" tells us that there was no alternative to the bombings by Sands and his colleagues, so we should not be surprised that terrorists continue to use the tactics from the Sinn Féin/IRA manual to carry out attacks on officers in 2026. Terrorism is a moral absolute: it always was and always will be wrong. That, however, is something that many on the Sinn Féin Benches cannot say.

On 'The Nolan Show' this morning, the Chief Constable appealed for unconditional support for the PSNI: are all the parties in the House happy to offer that support? I remind Members that the Sinn Féin Member for South Antrim, Mr Declan Kearney, made it clear only a few years ago that Sinn Féin support for the PSNI has always been conditional. Perhaps the Members opposite would like to clear up that matter and disown Mr Kearney's previous comments, or is that still the Sinn Féin position here today: justifying the violence against police officers in the past and conditional support for police officers in the present? To be blunt, the response from Sinn Féin to the Lurgan bomb at the start of the month and the Dunmurry bomb on Saturday night simply has not been good enough.

I pay tribute to the brave officers stationed in Dunmurry, who selflessly risked their own lives to evacuate the homes of those close to where the bomb went off on Saturday evening. That brings us back to the fact that the bomb attack at the weekend is yet another reminder of the unseemly —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Gaston: — and immoral sham that passes for a Government in the House led by Sinn Féin.

Mr Speaker: I call Trevor Clarke.

Mr Clarke: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. As has already been said about that attack in Dunmurry, many people either knew about it late on Saturday night or awoke to the news on Sunday morning. Clearly, there was shock in that community and the wider community of Northern Ireland on how the attack was premeditated and carried out. Our thoughts first go to the police officers who could have been affected in such a tragic way and to the families affected.

We heard from the Deputy Chief Constable over the weekend how those police officers risked their own lives to help their communities, as they do regularly, by escorting families and young children from their homes when the bomb was detonated. "Despicable" would not be a strong enough word for the actions carried out by the individuals responsible.

We are all too aware of the press commentary in the past couple of weeks around the illegal memorial to Bobby Sands in west Belfast. Some of us wonder whether the bomb corresponds to that. Is it some sort of a nod to the time that he bombed a furniture shop in Dunmurry? Nor can we forget, of course, how Sinn Féin continually romanticises violence across Northern Ireland on every occasion that it can, glorifying people who carried out similar acts and, indeed, worse, when they took people's lives.

The First Minister came out at the weekend and condemned this attack but has yet to condemn all of the previous attacks carried out by the then IRA. She talks about there being no alternative: everyone or most people on this side of the House appreciate that there were alternatives. The Chamber has been the alternative. Democracy has been the alternative. It is the only show in town. Violence has stood for nothing; it only destroyed people's lives, families, homes and much worse, of course. When I listen to Sinn Féin glorifying terrorism at every opportunity, I think, "Shame on them" because the people who are coming behind them now look at what Sinn Féin said in the past and what it is doing now.

Mr Burrows: The attack on Dunmurry police station was reckless and reprehensible. We are fortunate that we are not dealing with the death and murder of a man, woman, child or, as it transpired, a baby.

We should keep the level of threat in context. Dissident republicans have been heavily infiltrated and highly degraded in their capability, but there is no such thing as complete security and no such thing as total intelligence. There are occasional gaps. Whilst they have in their heart the desire to murder and some capability, they remain a clear and present danger. It is incumbent on us all to condemn terrorism completely and encourage people to support the PSNI to plug the intelligence gaps. As I look at the Minister Muir, standing in for the Justice Minister, it is also incumbent on us to ensure that we get full resourcing of the PSNI, which is both trying to deal with normal policing today, including domestic violence and child abuse images, and tackle a threat that is principally lined up against it.

I join other unionists in challenging Sinn Féin, because the dissident republicans are the latest in a continuum of republicans who have justified using death and destruction for political ends. You give them legitimacy when you say that it is OK in principle, if the time is right, if the circumstances are right, to kill people for a political objective.

They are following your ideology, and they are following your textbook. Violence was not wrong because you said that it was wrong, and it was not right because you said that it was right.

The most powerful thing that you could do is, at some stage, stand up and show leadership and say to the entire republican community, "It isn't right, it won't be right and it is never right to blow people to smithereens, to murder people, to injure people, to bereave people, to orphan people and to widow people in the name of politics". If you did that, you would remove the legitimacy that those people cling to. Remember the moral responsibility: it was your party that wrote the manual for what those people do now. The difference between the dissidents and the Provisionals is that you were, hard as it is to say, better at it. Patsy Gillespie was made into a human bomb and made to drive to a checkpoint. His only crime was to work for the security forces in a canteen. That is the legacy that you have left. I am glad that you no longer support violence today, but, if you really want to make a contribution to people in the years and decades ahead, stand up and say that it is never right and that it was never right and call on your entire community to turn their backs on dissident republican terrorism, to turn their backs on the narrative that terrorism can be OK and to fully support the PSNI and give it the intelligence that it needs.

Miss McAllister: Waking up to the news on Sunday morning of the disgraceful attack in Dunmurry was not just shocking but so disheartening as to how far we have come in Northern Ireland. The overwhelming majority of us here do not condone such violence, and it must be said that the majority of us never condoned it. The action of the thugs who believe that threatening the life of someone who was just going about their job and providing a service to the local community, forcing them to bring a life-threatening device into a residential area to threaten not only their life but the lives of many in that community and of police officers is simply unacceptable. Furthering any political cause by using violence is unacceptable. Alliance has never equivocated on the issue of political violence, not now and not then. It is not OK in 2026; it was not OK in 1969 and 1980; and it will never be OK.

My thoughts are with that delivery driver, who was put in the horrendous position of being hijacked and was very brave in his actions. That bravery meant that the PSNI officers could step in to protect lives. My thoughts are with those brave officers. All of us run with our families when there is danger, but they run towards the danger. For that, I thank them for their service. To the residents in the Kingsway area — in particular, we have heard this morning from the very young family who witnessed the scenes on Saturday evening — I say that my thoughts are also with them, and I hope that all of the victims receive the care that they need. I pay tribute not only to the local police team but to the entire leadership of the PSNI in showing resilience over the past few days — resilience that the police have had to show over the past 50 years in Northern Ireland when it comes to protecting our community.

To those behind the attack, I want to be clear: your success has been only in unifying voices against the violence and unifying wider political opinion and the community as a whole in condemning your actions. Such attempts to drag Northern Ireland back to the days of using violence will not succeed.

Ms Flynn: I welcome the matter being raised in the Assembly Chamber today. I spent yesterday afternoon in the Dunmurry area along with some of my colleagues in Sinn Féin, speaking to the police and to the local residents who, disgracefully, were forced out of their homes in those circumstances. Sinn Féin cannot be any clearer, and we have been clear and consistent in our response to the incident at the weekend. The people behind the absolutely horrendous attack on Saturday evening have nothing to offer our society. It is as clear and as simple as that. Their attack was horrendous, and they have nothing to offer. They represent no one, and they are completely devoid of support.

It is clear, as has been said, that the overwhelming majority of people who live in this part of Ireland reject such actions. They understand that they achieve absolutely nothing but disruption. Whoever was behind the attack, the only thing that they achieved was disruption, fear, annoyance and distress to local families, young children and babies — to the Dunmurry community and wider afield. Families and young children were being evacuated from their homes when the device went off. Some elderly residents could not even leave their homes and were terrified. We are very lucky that we are not dealing with a more serious outcome this morning.

The Dunmurry community and the local delivery driver went through a terrible ordeal. They were left shaken and scared, and whoever was behind that incident must leave the scene now. You have no vision, no support and nothing to offer our communities. Our communities deserve to live in peace. They continue to move forward into a better future; everyone here deserves that. Sinn Féin will engage with the community in the days and weeks ahead and provide any support needed to local residents, who deserve to live safely in their homes and in peace.

Mr O'Toole: The scenes that we saw in Dunmurry at the weekend will have made people ask this: what decade are we living in in this society? What decade have we woken up in to see scenes of an explosive device set off in a car in front of a police station, putting at risk the lives not just of the police officers who serve in that station but of people in the nearby community, including children and babies? That incident needs not only to be called out and condemned but to be challenged for the illegitimate, idiotic and immoral attack that it was. People in Dunmurry were not just inconvenienced; they were scared on Saturday because — let us be clear — someone attempted to take life outside Dunmurry police station. It was not simply an attempt to create a spectacle — even if it was that, it would have been grotesque and illegitimate — it was an attempt to cause death and destruction. It cannot — cannot — be equivocated about, and the SDLP, as we always have, roundly condemns it.

I say to the people involved in dissident republicanism, "Genuinely go away; don't just get off the stage. You are illegitimate; you represent nobody; you have nothing to offer". I say to people who want to deliver a new and united Ireland, as I do — I respect the fact that others in the Chamber do not want that — that I and my party are working to deliver that. If you want that, do not plant bombs and do not try to cause death and destruction. Join a political party, hand out a leaflet, stand for election and persuade your friends and neighbours of a hopeful future. Do not try to drag us back into a hopeless, violent past.

I want a united, new Ireland. I want to deliver that democratically by inspiring people about that vision. Bombing, explosions and shooting will not work and are not the way to achieve it. They were not the way in the past, are not the way now and will not be the way in the future. Stop. Go away. Your actions are illegitimate and have no support. Leave those of us with mandates who want to build a hopeful future on this island to do it.

Ms Sugden: Rightly, all of us find these events deeply concerning. That was the second such attack in a matter of months, and that alone should give us all pause for thought. They are not isolated incidents; they suggest something more deliberate and sinister that we, as elected Members, cannot afford to ignore.

For many people across Northern Ireland, this will be a disturbing reminder of the past. The nature of the attack and the fear that it was designed to create will resonate far beyond the immediate incident. People recognise what it looks like, and they understand the damage that it can do and continues to do not just physically but to confidence and to their everyday lives. There is no place for such violence in our society. It was a clear attempt to create fear and instability and should be recognised as that. We cannot allow those responsible to drag us back. It serves no one, least of all the community that they claim to represent. It is a manipulation for their own selfish aims.

This incident will also have had a very real impact on those closest to it: the officers who serve at the station and the staff who work there. Local residents in Dunmurry — families, mothers and children — will have been deeply affected. Such an incident affects people's sense of safety and normality, and that should not be underestimated. It will have created a trauma for which people will undoubtedly need support, but, sadly, it is not there. It is also a reminder of the reality of policing. The police are often criticised, but they serve to keep us safe, and they should be able to carry out that role without facing threats of this nature.

Sadly, those threats have continued for the police and for others on the front line. They have not gone away. Whilst we seem to be in peaceful times in Northern Ireland — thankfully, we have come such a long way from where we were — those threats continue, and those officers and their families and communities live with that every day.

The overwhelming majority of people want a safe community and a stable future. That is what people expect and deserve, not least after years of the Troubles and violence.

Those responsible for these events seek to create fear, division and uncertainty. They should not and will not succeed in doing so, because the direction of travel in Northern Ireland is forward. It is shaped by the many people who have chosen peace and stability every day.

These events are serious and should be treated as such, but the future of Northern Ireland will not be shaped by those who carry out attacks such as this, and we, as elected representatives, must ensure that it is not.

Miss Hargey: I concur with what my colleague has said. Obviously, what happened in Dunmurry at the weekend is not reflective or representative of the wider community there. Indeed, we know exactly what this is like because one of our offices was attacked with a viable device in recent months. Sinn Féin has been the focus of such actions as well, yet I have not heard one other person mention that. We understand completely what that is like.

Our Sinn Féin reps were out on the ground over the weekend, as Órlaithí said, engaging with the police. The police, along with other first responders, responded to the incident. They rapped doors and evacuated many people, including young children. We have been out engaging with that community, which, I am sure, is shaken up, along with the driver whose car was hijacked.

The attackers do not represent the wider community; a community that is looking forward, not back. That is what we have here: sections within the community. It is not unique to one community. We can see it with loyalists and other groups as well. There are those in the community and, indeed, some in the Chamber who want to drag us backwards. They want to go back to days that, thankfully, were 28 years ago. It is in moments such as this that we have to refocus our energy and look forward. We should not allow those outside or inside the Chamber to drag us back. We could all look across the Chamber and try to score points. What about Ulster Resistance and the red berets? Members of other parties in the Chamber put on the red beret. If you are going to look at things in history, look at the facts: the red berets and the creation of a sectarian state that had inbuilt discrimination in jobs and housing. That is the legacy of conflict that we have come from. There is a legacy of torture. My family member was tortured by the RUC's Special Branch, and there were plastic bullets and a shoot-to-kill policy.

We are 28 years after the Good Friday Agreement. My family and the community that I come from were impacted on by conflict, killings, torture and the sectarian discrimination that was built into the statelet that was formed here over 100 years ago. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Miss Hargey: However, we signed up to the Good Friday Agreement 28 years ago. We signed up — [Interruption.]

It is the Good Friday Agreement, which you did not sign up to. We signed up to the Good Friday Agreement —

—

Mr Speaker: Order.

Miss Hargey: — because we believe in bringing society forward and moving forward as a society under the terms of that agreement. Sinn Féin believes in power-sharing. Others may not or do not see us as partners —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up

Miss Hargey: — but we believe in power-sharing and in building this society.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Like the vast majority of people right across Northern Ireland, I was utterly appalled when I woke on Sunday morning to the news of this terrorist attack on Saturday night, an attack targeted at the PSNI.

I utterly condemn these attacks: that of Saturday night and that in Lurgan a few weeks earlier. I also condemn all those behind them. It is vital that we send the clear message this morning that we stand shoulder to shoulder in condemnation of the attack. Sinn Féin should reflect on the previous speech, because we need to send that clear message today.

I pay tribute to the brave police officers. Faced with a very challenging or frightening situation, so many of us would seek safety; those police officers ran towards the danger to support others and, indeed, potentially to save lives. That is why it is so important that we show leadership by sending the message of our full support for the PSNI.

Yesterday afternoon, along with my DUP colleague Frank McCoubrey, I went to Dunmurry to speak to residents, who were understandably deeply upset and apprehensive. When I was a child, I was evacuated from my primary school because of such attacks, but so many younger people in Northern Ireland have never experienced that. We do not want to return to those days. Let me be clear: Northern Ireland rejects that behaviour outright. Those people will fail. That is not our future; it is the worst dregs of our past.

Let me also be clear that acts of terrorism such as the one on Saturday night are just as wrong today as they were in the past. They demonstrate that there are still those who want to drag us back when others look to the future. We need to send that clear message and to show that clear leadership. We on these Benches clearly condemn all terrorism: in the past, now and in the future. Whether it came from loyalists or republicans, there was never justification for it. It was always wrong; there was always an alternative. Let us have that clarity of message.

My message to the terrorists still partaking in it today is clear: you are not wanted. Go away. Get off the stage. Violence, terrorism and criminality have no part to play in the brighter, better future that we are building in Northern Ireland for everyone across every community.

Mr Muir: The car bomb at Dunmurry police station on Saturday night was a reprehensible and evil attack not just on our brave Police Service of Northern Ireland officers but on the entire community. I thank the police and the other emergency services that responded to the incident with courage in helping to evacuate the area. It is only by the grace of God that no one was killed or seriously injured in that disgraceful terrorist attack.

It is incumbent on all of us here today to be united in condemnation of it and in urging anyone with any information that might help to apprehend the perpetrators to contact the police or Crimestoppers. It is clear that the people of Northern Ireland do not want that. Communities do not want that. We do not want to go back. What happened on Saturday night was evil — it was wrong — and we need to stand together against it.

Ms Brownlee: The scenes that we witnessed in Dunmurry on Saturday night were nothing more than a cowardly terrorist attack by the so-called New IRA, whose sole intention was to murder police officers and to spread fear throughout our communities. As the Chief Constable has been unequivocal in saying, it was reckless; it was dangerous; and it could easily have resulted in multiple deaths. That we are not dealing with a funeral today is down only to sheer chance and the bravery of the PSNI.

It was an attack not just on the police but on all of us: residents living nearby, families going about their daily business and anyone who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. We fully support the individuals who were caught up in that horrific incident, many of whom will have been deeply shaken by what they experienced.

Those responsible are not activists — they are not patriots; they are criminals intent on destruction — and offer Northern Ireland absolutely nothing. There can be no excuses, half-justifications or looking the other way from anyone who attempts to minimise, justify or provide political cover for that type of violence: they must speak with one voice on the issue.

That is why the hypocrisy that we have seen in recent days cannot go unchallenged. Only last week, Sinn Féin defended the unauthorised erection of a statue of Bobby Sands. Bobby Sands was involved in bombings: that is clear. A bomber is always a bomber. There never was and never will be justification for violence. Sinn Féin needs to stand with the PSNI every day. That means supporting the police, encouraging cooperation with the police, promoting police recruitment, encouraging school engagement and unequivocally backing officers as they uphold the rule of law in order to protect every person in Northern Ireland. To do anything less is to undermine the political structures that keep our communities safe.

The attack cannot be viewed in isolation, as it is the second attack in just four weeks. That pattern is extremely concerning and underlines the real and ongoing threat posed by dissident republican terrorists. My party stands firmly with the PSNI. Northern Ireland's future will not be decided by bombs, by threats or by those trapped in a failing past. As we continue to build a thriving Northern Ireland, it will be decided by democracy and consent. There is no appetite for violence, no support for it and no future in it. Northern Ireland will not tolerate, excuse or be intimidated by such actions. Those days are over, and they are not coming back.

Mr McGrath: What we saw in Dunmurry was not just reckless but utterly indefensible. A vehicle was hijacked, and a terrified civilian was forced to drive what was effectively a bomb. That device was planted in the middle of a residential community. By any measure, it was an attempt to kill. It was not some abstract act against the system; it was carried out in a built-up area, beside homes in which families, including those with young children, were present. It placed ordinary people in immediate danger and risked lives on a scale that is hard to comprehend. What makes what happened even more disturbing was the sheer recklessness of using such a device, which senior police have described as unpredictable, dangerous and a crude weapon that could have caused devastation well beyond its intended target.

As a member of the Policing Board, I record my admiration for the officers on the ground. Their actions were decisive and brave. They prevented what could have been a catastrophic loss of life. While others chose to spread fear, those officers chose to protect the public, evacuating residents, managing a live threat and putting themselves directly in harm's way. That is policing at its best.

I also recognise the human cost involved. A delivery driver's vehicle was hijacked, and that delivery driver — an ordinary worker — was forced into a situation that must have been utterly terrifying. That is the reality. Those responsible prey on civilians, exploit fear and drag innocent people into violence in which they wish to play no part. Those responsible have nothing to offer society: no mandate, no support and no future. They have shown a willingness to endanger the lives of police officers, civilians and families without consequence in their own minds. In response, we must show unity in backing the police, rejecting violence and defending the peace that the vast majority of people across this island value and want to protect.

I will end by saying that I am not so sure that we have seen that unity in the Chamber today. That is disappointing. Was some of what has been said amplifying political disdain or being used for political gain? I hope that it was not the latter.

Mr Brett: The depraved and deranged actions of a bunch of cowardly terrorists at the weekend stands in stark contrast to the bravery displayed daily by police officers across Northern Ireland. Each morning, they wake up and put on their uniform, not to protect one section of our community but to serve, without fear or favour, everyone who has the privilege of calling Northern Ireland "home". While the terrorists ran from danger under the cover of darkness, our proud public servants in the Police Service of Northern Ireland ran towards it. This should be the joint message from the House today: we are blessed to have men and women who will serve, without fear or favour, every section of our community. In our most difficult times, it is they whom we turn to to defend us. If the House cannot unite to defend them when they are under attack, shame on us.

I must say that the remarks by the Member for South Belfast were nothing short of an absolute disgrace. I condemn without equivocation any wrongdoing that was inflicted on her family. However, for her to try to say that Members on these Benches supported loyalist paramilitaries — men of violence who inflicted murder on my family — I take as a great insult. Unlike the Member opposite, I can condemn all forms of violence, and I hope that, one day, her party colleagues will condemn the violence inflicted on the community of North Belfast, be it the Shankill bomb or anything else.

This action should be a wake-up call about the doublespeak by some in the House; indeed, it is disappointing that some cannot even be in the House today when this message is being read. Once again, our First Minister is AWOL. Let that sink in. What could be more pressing for the First Minister than to be in the Chamber and send a united message that that action was wrong? She is nowhere to be seen.

The Members on the Benches opposite cannot be surprised: they said last week that there was no alternative to violence, and then violence was carried out at the weekend. They cannot celebrate last week a bloodthirsty sectarian murderer — Bobby Sands — and then say, this weekend, that those actions are wrong. They cannot say last week that rules do not apply to republicans and then be surprised when people try to blow up police officers. On behalf of the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland, I say that it is time for Sinn Féin to put up or shut up.

Mr Speaker: I have three other speaking requests, but, unfortunately, time is up, so I apologise to those Members.

Mr Sheehan: Ós rud é gur sinne an páirtí agus an ghluaiseacht pholaitíochta is mó ar an oileán, ní raibh áit níos fearr ná Béal Feirste ann leis an ard-fheis a óstáil i mbliana, nó tá an chathair s’againn i gcroílár imeachtaí na nGael i mbliana. D’óstáil muid Oireachtas na Samhna agus ard-fheis Chonradh na Gaeilge, agus beidh Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann againn le linn an tsamhraidh.

Agus an ard-fheis s’againn á reáchtáil sa chathair s’againn, bhí deis agam mo mhachnamh a dhéanamh ar an méid a d’athraigh ó bhí 2018 ann, an uair dheireanach a d’ostáil muid an ard-fheis. D’athraigh stáid na polaitíochta go mór ó shin. D’fhás an páirtí ar an dá thaobh den teorainn. Michelle O’Neill ina Céad-Aire ar an fhoras seo an cruthú is fearr air sin. Má d’athraigh cuid mhór, tá cuid mhór atá gan athrú. Níor athraigh ár dtacaíocht do athaontú na hÉireann; níor athraigh ár ndlúthpháirtíocht idirnáisiúnta le pobail atá faoi chois ar fud an domhain; agus níor athraigh ár dtiomantas do lucht oibre na hÉireann. Ba léir ó na himeachtaí agus na rúin ag an deireadh seachtaine an tiomantas atá againn dár bpolaitíocht, nó vótáil an ard-fheis d’aon ghuth i bhfabhar rúin inar daingníodh an tiomantas againn chun athaontú na hÉireann, chun tacú le muintir na Palaistíne agus muintir Chúba agus chun tacú le pobail mhionlaigh anseo in Éirinn; agus rúin i dtaca leis an Ghaeilge.

Tá mé thar a bheith bródúil as ionadaíocht a dhéanamh ar son Shinn Féin sa tSeomra seo. Tá mé thar a bheith bródúil as ionadaíocht a dhéanamh ar son mhuintir mo thoghlcheantair a chuir a muinín inár bpáirtí, agus tá mé thar a bheith bródúil as an dul chun cinn atá déanta againn, agus a leanfaimid orainn a dhéanamh sa tSeomra seo, i gcomhairlí agus i dTeach Laighean.

Mr Dunne: There is ever-growing frustration across Northern Ireland about the persistent inaction of the Infrastructure Minister, Liz Kimmins, on the delivery of projects that are both long overdue and totally essential for Northern Ireland.

Take the York Street interchange as one recent example. That strategically vital project would transform our connectivity, ease chronic congestion and drive economic growth across Northern Ireland. Yet, despite over £27 million being spent on the project, there is absolutely nothing to show for it. It is time for accountability. Just weeks ago, the Sinn Féin Infrastructure Minister told me that officials had presented their findings on the project and that she was "taking the time" to consider the next steps. The Minister has been taking her time from day 1 in office: taking her time to fix our roads, fix the infrastructure and waste water crisis and deliver much-needed infrastructure projects across our country. For years, communities have waited for the A5 project to finally get moving. Yet, despite the repeated empty promises, including most recently from Michelle O'Neill at the weekend, who stated that they:

If you live on the planned route, you will know that there is no want of stones but certainly not much sign of tarmac.

With zero progress on key infrastructure projects, we have seen zero interest in recognising the impact that unrealistic and unaffordable climate targets have on those projects. Under this Minister for inaction, it seems that vital investment in our roads and economic development will continue to be delayed, and all we will see delivered is excuses. Our road network continues to be in a state of real crisis, with wheel-wrecking potholes lining urban and rural roads in every corner of Northern Ireland, costing the public thousands in vehicle damage daily and compromising the important road safety messages that come out from the Department. Does the Sinn Féin Minister recognise the pothole pandemic? To date, it seems that she certainly does not. The Minister has also ignored the role that utility companies play in the poor reinstatement of road openings. She has ignored the recent Northern Ireland Audit Office report on that subject and the findings of the Public Accounts Committee, with zero enforcement and even less accountability.

Compounding those failures, of course, is the ongoing waste water crisis, which is blocking housing and economic development, growth and regeneration across Northern Ireland, with no solutions. Infrastructure is not a luxury. The people of Northern Ireland deserve decisive leadership and actual delivery, not endless delays, consultations or sound bites. Minister, words are no longer enough; it is time for urgent action and delivery.

Ms Nicholl: I draw the House's attention to a petition that has recently been launched in Carryduff, calling on Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council to deliver a new and modern Lough Moss leisure centre. Residents across Carryduff, Newtownbreda and the Four Winds have come together to make it clear that the current facility is no longer fit for purpose. The demand has simply outgrown the capacity, and people are being turned away from classes and the gym due to oversubscription. Earlier, I talked to my colleague, Councillor Jamie Harpur, and he said that there is often a queue of people waiting in the reception to use the gym equipment. The classes come online at 8.00 am, and they have all gone by 8.01 am because there is a serious demand.

The situation is made particularly pressing by the absence of a local swimming pool. There is only one in the entire council area, and that is wholly inadequate for a growing and active population. I passionately believe that swimming is a life skill. I have been doing work on this, and I believe that every child should have the opportunity to learn to swim, not as a luxury but as a basic part of growing up safe and healthy. When families in Castlereagh South have to travel significant distances to access a pool, we are putting unnecessary barriers in their way. We should be making it easier for families, not harder.

The residents whom I represent contribute a significant amount in rates, and they deserve to see the investment reflected in the facilities available to them, yet Castlereagh South continues to be underserved. This a community issue. It is not political, and the strength of the campaign lies in residents speaking with one voice. I appeal to elected representatives in the area to get behind the community-led effort, rather than fragment it. At the recent community meeting, it was agreed that parties would work together on this, and it is important that they do so. When we work together across party lines, we are more effective, but, when we put politics first, it is the community that loses out. The people who have signed the petition are not asking for anything unreasonable; they are asking for a leisure centre that will meet their needs, with a dedicated swimming pool at its heart. I urge the council to listen to those voices, act on the petition and commit to proper investment in Castlereagh South.

Dr Aiken: Last week, the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee held a series of meetings in Brussels. The Sinn Féin, DUP and UUP members met representatives from our excellent Northern Ireland Executive Office in Brussels and members of the European Parliament Committees for both agriculture and competitiveness. We also met representatives from the UK and Irish missions.

The main topic of discussion was the forthcoming UK-EU meeting on the reset. There are three clear issues within the reset, the first and second of which were part of the UK's main asks.

The first issue is the sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreement, which most believed was largely on track, although some derogations have yet to emerge from the tunnel. The second issue relates to carbon adjustment mechanisms. Members will have noted the imposition of the emissions trading scheme on the maritime sector, which will add up to 6% on our shipping costs from 1 July. That was seen by the European Union as a mark of faithful implementation, despite its impact on costs within Northern Ireland. As is the case with the SPS agreement, the carbon adjustment mechanism was largely seen as being a done deal. Finally, the main EU ask from the UK is on youth movement. It is being seen as much more problematic to deliver, and concerns over it, especially on dynamic alignment, may delay any formal agreement, this summer.

It was unfortunate that our Alliance members were not there to hear the concerns about the Union Customs Code, aka the catchily named "Alliance tax", which is a duty that will be paid on all non-GB or EU parcels, with an administration charge added later in the year. Much like with the implementation of the Irish Sea carbon tax, the EU fully expects the implementation of the Alliance tax to be made as a matter of good faith by the UK, although there was no answer to questions on where the close on €100 million of duty and administration tax will go. Across the EU, the administration charge will go to funding new EU customs organisations, something that we currently have no oversight of.

One thing that I did have oversight of was an 'Emily in Paris' anti-fashionista movement. France has pre-empted the imposition of the Union Customs Code by charging €2 per item rather than per parcel. The Document Administratif Unique (DAU) Francaise 2026 means that, if Emily or Mindy, or even Sylvie, secretly, wanted to order from Temu or SHEIN — other brands are available — on an order of three quarters of matched items, it will cost them a minimum of €8 in duty. If that formula is used here, it will not just be fast-fashion teenagers who will be up in arms.

This July, the combination of the Union Customs Code and the maritime carbon tax are going to add substantially to the costs for the Northern Ireland consumer. Faithful implementation has a direct cost — one to which the people of Northern Ireland did not sign up.

Mr McCrossan: There is growing frustration in my West Tyrone constituency at the delays to the A5 project. People are anxious for its future. No matter how much reassurance is given from the SDLP and others who advocate daily for the delivery of the A5, the actions, or lack thereof, from those in power in the Executive tell a different story. The A5 project is vital not just for ensuring the safety of people who travel on that road but as an economic lever to bring some equality to the part of the island on which I reside. People are desperate to see it.

When watching the Sinn Féin ard fheis, at the weekend, you struggled to believe that it is a party that has led in government for over 20 years. Its members stand at the pulpit, year in, year out, making and rehashing promises. What featured this weekend was the A5. The First Minister said that no stone would be left unturned, and the Minister for Infrastructure talked about how much of a priority it is. Equally, local representatives were at the pulpit. People are not falling for that rehashed, regurgitated, false promise any longer. Sinn Féin has the power to deliver the A5; it has been in power for 20 years. The only problem is that it does not seem to realise that with power comes responsibility. It has the ability to deliver the road but seems to struggle. You have to question whether Sinn Féin has what it takes to do what is right when it comes to the A5. The fingerprints of failure are all over the A5, and they are the fingerprints of Sinn Féin.

The message that I am getting from the electorate across West Tyrone, regardless of what has been said at the pulpit by the First Minister, the Infrastructure Minister or others, is that, if Sinn Féin does not deliver the road, the people of Tyrone, Fermanagh, Derry and Donegal will not forgive them. Sinn Féin is in a prime position to deliver the project. We do not want to hear the same regurgitated messages about how it supports the A5 project; we want to see Sinn Féin put its money where its mouth is and get it done. The mistakes surrounding the A5 could have been avoided: they were entirely avoidable. Unfortunately, it comes down to incompetence in government, a lack of proper and meaningful leadership and too much talk and not enough action. The A5 is a priority for the SDLP — I talk about it every day — for reasons that are well rehearsed, but it is time that Sinn Féin actually delivered something. This weekend, I did not hear one thing that Sinn Féin has delivered after 20 years in government in the North.

Mr McAleer: I am delighted to take this opportunity to commend the organisers of the Mid Ulster Drama Festival for their outstanding work in hosting last weekend's all-Ireland confined drama finals in Carrickmore. Since its beginnings, the Mid Ulster Drama Festival has grown into something truly incredible. Hosting those all-Ireland finals was no small undertaking and was delivered with true professionalism, warmth and pride.

The Patrician Hall is an excellent host venue, and it welcomed nine drama groups from eight counties to the stage. Over the course of the festival, audiences were treated to performances of exceptional quality, complemented by a venue that impressed performers and spectators alike. The standard of drama was second to none, and visiting groups echoed that message. They were struck by the friendliness and warmth of the local community. From the Patrician Hall itself to the shops, accommodation and local bars, a lasting impression was made. The sense of community is something truly special and reflects great credit on Carrickmore. With thousands of visitors travelling from across the island, the event was a celebration not only of drama but of culture, hospitality and local pride.

To the organisers, volunteers and the wider community, I say "Maith sibh".

I hope to see the festival return to Carrickmore again in the future.

Ms Forsythe: On Saturday evening, it was devastating to see the scenes of widespread fires emerging from the Mourne Mountains once again. It really was soul-destroying to sit there in the heart of our local community with our children looking up at the mountains as the huge flames got closer to our homes. It is terrifying and reckless, and it endangers lives and destroys our nature and habitats.

When we see the glorious weather coming along, it is great to get out and enjoy the countryside and welcome visitors to the Mourne area, which boosts tourism. Saturday was a beautiful and very busy day, but then the fires started across three sites in a very confined area from Slievenaman Road to Bloody Bridge. The fires were huge, fast-moving and came right down — I am sure that everyone saw the images — to the back of people's homes on the coast road from Kilkeel to Newcastle, with many people evacuated. Panic spread as everyone hurried to locate their loved ones, who may have been out camping or walking, as is normal on pleasant evenings. That should not be what local people in the Mourne area are subjected to every time there is good weather.

Those who are starting the fires maliciously need to feel the full force of the law. Too often, we see these fires and the reports of intentional crimes but with no consequences. Last year, there was an arrest at the fires towards the Hilltown area, and I believe that the case will be heard in the weeks ahead. We need to see justice served, and we need to set an example for people to see.

Over the weekend past, our Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service, the Mourne Mountain Rescue Team and the local PSNI have been excellent, supported by Sky Watch NI. Their outstanding coordination and bravery in face of the most treacherous conditions kept us all safe. I think of their families, who will have been so concerned when looking up at the giant flames engulfing the mountainside and thinking of their loved ones up there facing off those fires. I sincerely thank everyone who attended, many of whom are still working to contain those fires, which are still burning. Huge amounts of smoke were still coming out of the mountains as I drove here today.

The local community has also been incredible and has rallied to support, with many local businesses providing food and water to those working in the mountains. People have been asked to avoid the area, and I ask that that request continue to be respected whilst the firefighting continues.

It has been reported that this incident was not a result of recreational activity and that the fires were started in areas that are hard for the public to access. Rural arson is a crime, and, if anyone has any information on these deliberately lit fires, which are malicious attacks on our countryside, they should come forward and contact the police. I urge them to call 999 immediately at the sign of any fire and, if they have any information, to please come forward.

Mr Mathison: We are currently in the middle of Global Intergenerational Week. I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the work of Linking Generations Northern Ireland, the only organisation that leads on intergenerational work in Northern Ireland, having done so since 2009. Any Member who has engaged with Vicki Titterington, who heads up that organisation, will be familiar with her passion and drive to support intergenerational work in Northern Ireland and her commitment to embedding intergenerational approaches across our society and at every level of government here.

Linking Generations coordinates a network of over 1,700 members and, crucially, is the Northern Ireland lead for work associated with Global Intergenerational Week. The week runs from 24 to 30 April, and it celebrates and promotes all the excellent intergenerational activity in Northern Ireland. That international week is an opportunity to set out a vision of the sort of society that we want to see in Northern Ireland for our children to grow up and grow old in.

I am particularly pleased that Twinkl NI is promoting a range of intergenerational resources for use in our schools and that Public Health Agency funding continues to support a number of schools across Northern Ireland in delivering intergenerational activities in their local communities. There is a great track record of embedding intergenerational work in our schools in Northern Ireland, with the age-friendly agenda and action plans in our councils and the fact that intergenerational approaches are referenced in the Programme for Government.

Unfortunately, however, there are threats to that work. Following the winding-up of its former host charity in England, Linking Generations has found itself in a very difficult and challenging financial position. It is now a stand-alone charity in Northern Ireland, and, aside from a small pot of Public Health Agency funding to help to retain some daily operations, it is without sustainable funding. That means that it will be unable to deliver work at the scale that we have seen before and that retaining staff to drive that work will be impossible. I encourage all Ministers, councils and arm's-length bodies in Northern Ireland to look at any opportunities to maximise investment in Linking Generations and intergenerational work more broadly in Northern Ireland. It is a key aspect of a healthy society, and it is vital that it is allowed to continue.

Mr Gildernew: I will speak in Irish this afternoon. Members may wish to use their headphones.

Dhiúltaigh breitheamh Ard-Chúirte d’agóid in aghaidh bheartas Gaeilge Chomhairle Cathrach Bhéal Feirste an tseachtain seo caite. Theip ar iarracht na seachtaine seo caite cosc a chur ar an dul chun cinn. Teipfidh ar iarrachtaí le cosc a chur ar an chomhionannas, agus teipfidh ar iarrachtaí muid a tharraingt ar gcúl. Glacadh an cinneadh ceart, agus is geal liom an cinneadh céanna. Caithfear comhionannas don Ghaeilge a chur i bhfeidhm; níor chóir bac a chur leis.

Tá an Ghaeilge ag borradh léi ar fud an oileáin, agus caithfear reachtaíocht agus beartais bheith i bhfeidhm le tacú leis an bhorradh sin agus leis an Ghaeilge a chothú. Is féidir le Comhairle Cathrach Bhéal Feirste an beartas nua Gaeilge aici a chur chun feidhme anois agus a chinntiú go dtabharfar cothrom na Féinne don Ghaeilge mar theanga oifigiúil na comhairle agus go ndéanfar í a thaispeáint agus go mbeidh sí le sonrú i seirbhísí agus i gcomharthaíocht ar fud na comhairle. Tá mé ag tnúth lenár dteanga a fheiceáil in úsáid agus á taispeáint sa chathair seo in aicearracht.

Bhí díomá orm gur idirghabh an tAire Pobail sa chás úd, i ndiaidh go bhfuil sé de dhualgas air tacú leis an Ghaeilge a chur chun cinn agus a fhorbairt. In ionad iarracht a dhéanamh an Ghaeilge a chur faoi chois, ba chóir don Aire a aird a dhíriú ar straitéis Gaeilge a chur i bhfeidhm gan a thuilleadh moille. Tá coicís ó shin sa tSeomra seo, chomhaontaigh muid le Bille Gaelscolaíochta a chur ar aghaidh tríd an Dara Céim, Bille a thug mo chomhghleacaí, Pat Sheehan, isteach; Bille lena chinnteofar go mbeidh na múinteoirí agus an fhoireann ann le tacú le fás na Gaelscolaíochta.

Mr Buckley: At the weekend, Sinn Féin, the party of bluff, spin and distraction, held its annual conference in Belfast. Just like a scene from North Korea's Central Committee, the faithful clapped on cue in response to totally unfounded claims.

It was a clear attempt to cover up the complete disaster that has been caused by the Sinn Féin Ministers who currently occupy office, be that the Minister for Infrastructure, who is overseeing a complete disaster in her Department as a result of the roads nightmare and the blocking of key infrastructure projects such as the A5, the A4 and the A1 because of climate change targets to which her party's Members were co-signatories, or the Minister for the Economy, who is more intent on losing jobs for here than creating jobs. You could not make it up.

As sure as day follows night, however, the biggest bluff and distraction was put back on the table by Michelle O'Neill when she said that we are to have a border poll by 2030. That is not something new for a Sinn Féin ard-fheis. It is not something new for Sinn Féin Members in the Chamber. In 1974, we were told that it would be the year of victory. Mystic Meg-like Gerry Adams predicted that we would have left the union by 2016. With his crystal ball, he then corrected that to 2024. It is a common tactic: the tactic of distraction.

At the weekend, Sinn Féin presented itself as the party of progress. I argue that it is the party of stagnant decay, because, let us face it, it is not progress in 2026 to say that men can be women. It is not progress in 2026 to say that men can partake in women-only sports. It is not progress in 2026 to say that young people should have access to dangerous drugs such as puberty blockers. It is not progress in 2026 to say to the young people of today that there was no alternative to the violence of the past.

There is a leadership issue at the heart of Sinn Féin, and the party is very keen to distract from it. When asked whether Mary Lou will continue as leader, Michelle O'Neill was quick to say that the party is full of talent. Where is it? It does not sit in the Assembly. Eulogising the terrorism of yesterday breeds the terrorism of today. We have to be very aware of that.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr McMurray: I will also speak about the wildfires that swept across the Mournes on Saturday. Although the word "wildfires" is in common parlance, and it is useful to a certain degree for conveying the image of what is taking place, they are not spontaneous combustion events. Any fire that takes hold in the Mournes begins with a deliberate act. Whether a fire is set with malicious or malevolent intent or through wilful ignorance and neglect, the end result is the same: destruction.

I thank all those who were called on to respond to the fires. It is no exaggeration to say that, through the efforts of all the blue-light organisations, of voluntary and statutory bodies and of members of the public, no lives and no properties were lost. The Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service was on the hill for as long as it remained safe for it to do so and then returned at first light to continue to tackle the blaze. It worked tirelessly along the boundary wall of Donard Forest to ensure that the fire did not take hold in the area. Should we continue to see such fires being lit, I fear that a tragedy will befall us.

I spoke to the residents who watched as the flames came within metres of their properties. I understand that motorhomes and caravans were evacuated from a site and that residents were told to have a bag packed should they be asked to leave. In the aftermath, I spoke to those who saw an ingress of trails of scorched earth at their properties. That is just the human element, however.

I know that I am not allowed props, Mr Speaker, and I do not have any with me, but I keep a jam jar of ash from a previous fire. The fires have become so prevalent that I cannot even remember the exact year from which it comes. I keep it to remind me of the devastation that such incidents cause.

I am not an expert botanist or an ecologist, but spring should be a time of renewal, nature and wildlife. Instead, we have devastation across swathes of land. Every year, after a dry spell in April, fires are lit, which then spread across our upland areas. The AERA Minister and his Department have brought forward a strategy and a plan to deal with such incidents. Work enabled by the strategy will go some way towards educating on behaviours and practices that will end these devastating fires.

Should anyone have any information that is of relevance to the investigations, they should pass it on to the PSNI or Crimestoppers. That will allow the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service, the PSNI and the NIEA to complete their investigations into the incidents.

Mr O'Toole: I want to echo some of the remarks that were made earlier by my constituency colleague and friend Kate Nicholl, who has just returned to the Chamber, about an urgent question that has been left waiting for far too long not only for the people of Carryduff but for the people of BT8 and Castlereagh South more broadly, and that is the failure to build a new leisure centre at Lough Moss. I am pleased to say that there was cross-party support for a petition that was launched by my colleague Councillor John Gallen. The petition calls for something that people in BT8 have not had for years, if not decades, and certainly not under the auspices of Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council since it was formed, which is proper investment and focus on that area.

A few years ago, the SDLP established that, despite contributing the largest total of rates by district electoral area to Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council, Castlereagh South has historically had the lowest level of investment. The people there have to put up with all the traffic that flows down to Forestside. It is a great shopping amenity, but the traffic and congestion that is created affects air quality for people all the way down the Saintfield Road from Carryduff to Newtownbreda. They would expect and deserve proper investment in amenities in their area, but they simply have not had that. The failure to invest in Lough Moss is another example of that.

As was said earlier on, Lough Moss is overcrowded and simply not fit for purpose. I am sure that it was a great facility back in the 1990s. Recently, there has been investment in 3G pitches there, which are used by Carryduff Colts, which is a great soccer club, and Carryduff GAC. However, the leisure centre itself needs to be properly upgraded. As you will be well aware, Mr Speaker, it needs a pool. People who live in Carryduff and rely on public transport either have to get multiple buses into the centre of Belfast and out to Lisnasharragh or Olympia, or they have to get on a bus and go all the way to Downpatrick to get to a swimming pool. That is not good enough for people in BT8.

The SDLP have been saying for years that the people of Castlereagh South have been getting a raw deal from that council. I am afraid that others supported the vast investment in the replacement of Dundonald Ice Bowl. On its own terms, there is nothing wrong with that, but it means that there will be a lot less investment in other parts of Lisburn and Castlereagh. BT8 and Castlereagh South, once again, have been left without proper investment. It is an area where people pay really substantial rates. They make their home in that area, which has great community assets. I mentioned Carryduff Colts and Carryduff GAC, and there is Bredagh GAC and the Carryduff regeneration forum. Those are brilliant local community and sports groups, formed by people in the community, but they do not get the backing of the council in that area.

The council needs to properly invest there and needs to start with a new leisure centre at Lough Moss, with a swimming pool and proper facilities for people in that area. While we are at it, let us also get proper investment in the public realm in Carryduff and more road safety measures, as well as, ideally, at some point, the Glider.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Matthew. I ask Members to take their ease for a moment.

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

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate. Minister, please open the debate.

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

The Petroleum Exploration and Licensing (Repeal) Bill has a very clear objective, which is to bring a permanent end to onshore oil and gas exploration and production in the North of Ireland. The House previously agreed to the direction that we are travelling in. Through the Climate Change Act 2022, we are legally committed to achieving net zero by 2050. The Bill simply ensures that our petroleum licensing framework is consistent with that commitment.

For decades, the Department held powers under the Petroleum (Production) Act 1964 to license oil and gas exploration. Exploration took place, but, despite multiple licences being issued over many years, no commercially viable oil or gas was found. The last licence was relinquished in 2020. Since then, the context has changed significantly. Climate obligations have tightened, public expectations have shifted and the economic case for onshore petroleum in the region is not supported by the available evidence. In 2020, my Department began a full review of the existing licensing regime. Independent research was commissioned to assess the economic, social and environmental impacts. Its conclusions were clear: onshore petroleum exploration and extraction are unlikely to deliver significant economic benefits, would not enhance our energy security and would not reduce energy prices. Public views were equally clear. A full public consultation was carried out in 2024, and there was strong support for a moratorium followed by a legislative ban. Respondents pointed to our climate commitments and raised concerns about environmental and community impacts. There was also a strong and consistent message about priorities, which was that we should focus our efforts on renewables, not fossil fuel development.

Taken together, the evidence, the consultation outcomes and our legal obligations point consistently in the same direction. That is why, in December 2024, the Executive agreed a clear policy position, which was to have a temporary moratorium followed by legislation to put a permanent ban in place. The Bill gives effect to that decision. It removes the Department's power to issue petroleum licences; it removes the right to search and bore for and get petroleum under the 1964 Act; and it closes the door on all forms of onshore oil and gas exploration and production, including fracking.

The Bill is consistent with the Climate Change Act, the Executive's energy strategy and the evidence. Continuing to allow for petroleum licensing would create uncertainty for communities and send the wrong signal about the future direction of our energy system. The Bill removes that uncertainty and allows us to focus fully on building a clean, secure and sustainable energy future. I therefore commend the Bill to the Assembly.

Mr Brett (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Economy): I will speak on behalf of the Economy Committee at the outset and will then make some remarks in my individual capacity.

This is the third Economy Bill that has got as far as Second Stage. The Department briefed the Committee on a related consultation in 2024, and officials briefed again on the legislation just before Easter. As the Minister indicated, the Petroleum (Production) Act (Northern Ireland) 1964 grants the Department powers to license exploration, boring and extraction of petroleum. The Committee understands that around 30 applications have been made in Northern Ireland since 1964 and that there are currently no active exploration or extraction licences. However, a further two applications had been received in 2016 and are subject to an ongoing moratorium. The Bill introduces a ban on issuing licences for all forms of onshore petroleum exploration and production in Northern Ireland by removing the licensing provision from the 1964 Act and revoking related regulations. The Bill stops any of the ongoing applications and provide a refund for those two applications.

The Bill follows a review in 2020 that found that the licensing system did not appear to give sufficient weight to societal or environmental issues compared with economic benefits. The Department had previously commissioned research by Hatch, which identified limited benefits associated with petroleum exploration and production in Northern Ireland. The report stated:

of petroleum extraction and development were "shown to be relatively low" and

that would be required to lower energy prices in Northern Ireland as a result of exploration.

The Hatch report also indicated that key information gaps persisted in respect of hydraulic fracturing, which is also known as "fracking", relating to the potential pollution of groundwater and, as a result, the long-term failure or deterioration of well integrity, as well as pollution in our community. Other information gaps related to:

Furthermore, in respect of fracking, the report referred to:

It also indicated that some of the impacts of fracking will be:

The Department previously argued that its approach to fracking was supported by the British Geological Survey desktop report, which indicated that there is not enough information on the current stress regime and state of the faults in Northern Ireland.

To be clear, the Bill goes beyond banning fracking as a method of petroleum exploration or extraction; it bans all forms of onshore petroleum exploration or extraction and retains petroleum resources as being vested in the Department for the Economy. If the Second Stage passes today, I expect that the launch of the Committee Stage will generate a considerable response to our call for evidence and that the Committee may come back to the House to seek an extension to the Committee Stage.

I will now make some remarks from my party's perspective. We will support the legislation moving to Committee Stage to allow the Committee to undertake its important work of testing the evidence that has been provided to it to date. We will ensure that a wide public consultation is carried out, so that the views of all the people of Northern Ireland can be heard and listened to. At the heart of the wider energy strategy required from the Department for the Economy are the issues of energy security and bills. The Member for Lagan Valley who will speak later will, no doubt, highlight that the Department needs to undertake important work to produce a master plan of how we will deliver energy security on these islands.

With that pretext, my party will support the Bill's moving to the next stage.

Ms McLaughlin: Today marks a welcome and important step forward in placing a statutory prohibition on onshore petroleum exploration and licensing. As Members from all parties will know, that is not a new argument in the Chamber; we have spoken about it many times. In fact, in 2015 — over a decade ago — my party colleague Mark Durkan ensured that a ban on fracking in policy was taken forward through his strategic planning policy statement. We have been pleased to support previous private Members' Bills on the topic. Outside the Chamber, the message from communities, campaigners and experts has been consistent and clear: they have raised the alarm about the risk of petroleum extraction and the need for a statutory ban. Their voices and the public pressure that they have created deserve the credit for the debate and even the action today a this stage of the legislative process.

We know, of course, that the evidence backs up those campaigners. Research has consistently shown us that it is communities, not companies, who truly pay the price for the effects of fracking. The consequences are not only environmental but can be seen in the long-term health impacts and the wider social effects that are inflicted on local people by the practice. Moreover, the 2021 Hatch report was clear that Northern Ireland is unlikely to achieve the economies of scale that would make the industry viable to a point where it could lower costs for consumers. In other words, any continuation of fracking could risk significant environmental damage and social consequences for, at best, a very modest economic return. I am glad that we are united in opposing that trade-off. It is a conclusion that should be particularly heeded by anyone who wants to defend the practice on the basis of economic interests. The evidence simply does not support them.

It should go without saying that ending the practice also aligns with our obligations under the Climate Change Act and our wider transition to a sustainable energy system. Ending that extraction practice is a necessary step if we are serious about meeting those commitments. Continuing to profess loyalty to those targets without ending the practice would undoubtedly ring rather hollow. Let us be honest: there is no meaningful case for the continuation of fracking licences. There is no compelling environmental or economic case.

The legislation is welcome and overdue, but it is just catch-up legislation. Six years ago, we passed unanimously, across parties, a motion calling for this move. I remember speaking about it two years ago during a debate on a Sinn Féin motion. Then, I said that the question was no longer whether a ban would happen but how long it would take for the Economy Minister to progress to that legislation. Ireland legislated for the ban back in 2017. Across the UK, a moratorium has effectively halted the practice. Our political dysfunction — the in-out politics here— has frustrated efforts to act at the same pace. While I welcome this process and the Second Stage today, it should also prompt us to reflect on how we ensure that the necessary action is not postponed in the future and that it is part of wider energy planning as well, as was mentioned by the Chair of the Economy Committee.

The real task ahead is not simply to prohibit what we should not do but to accelerate what we must do. That means investing in clean, renewable energy and building a sustainable energy system that delivers for our economy and our environment. The Bill is a step in the right direction, and I look forward to engaging further at Committee Stage and examining its provisions in greater detail.

Mr Delargy: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Second Stage of the Bill. At the outset, I acknowledge the work of the Economy Minister, Caoimhe Archibald, in introducing the legislation. The Minister has taken a clear and strategic approach to one of the biggest economic questions that we face: how do we build a modern, resilient economy while managing the transition from fossil fuels? That approach has been supported by evidence from the public and evidence taken from stakeholders, as well as other key policy on it.

The Bill meets the Minister's economic vision. It is an environmental measure as well as an economic intervention. It recognises that continued petroleum exploration no longer matches the direction of travel in global markets, where capital is increasingly flowing towards renewables, clean technologies and energy efficiency. Clinging to outdated models risks leaving our economy exposed, not protected. We need to be honest here about the future of growth and where that will come from. The global shift to decarbonisation is not a distant prospect and already shapes investment decisions, supply chains and job creation. By removing the legislative basis for petroleum exploration, the Bill gives investors clarity and certainty. It sends a clear message that this region intends to be a part of and leader in the emerging low-carbon economy. That certainty matters because it reinforces the Minister's work on this, and it is already attracting investment in renewable, green manufacturing and innovation.

Energy security is, of course, pivotal to any such discussion. As we emerge in 2026, energy security cannot be viewed only through the lens of fossil fuel extraction. Real security comes from diversification, resilience and reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and volatile energy markets. The Minister's work in supporting an all-Ireland energy framework is also critical, in that it helps us to maximise the renewable opportunities, reduce costs for consumers and build a more resilient system. That is good environmental policy as well as good and smart economic policy.

We should be clear about the economic risks that can come from continued petroleum exploration, particularly in sectors such as tourism. In some places, environmentally damaging extraction can put at risk the natural assets on which the local community and economy depend. For example, the European Commission has highlighted the environmental risks associated with hydraulic fracturing or fracking, including potential impacts on water quality and on landscapes. Tourism bodies, including Fáilte Ireland, have also been clear that Ireland's tourism offer rests heavily on its reputation for unspoilt natural environments. In the past, when fracking was proposed in places such as County Fermanagh, concerns were raised about how it could change perceptions of the area among visitors. The fear was that industrialising rural landscapes could deter tourism, and that matters in regions where tourism is a key economic driver and jobs depend on protecting environmental quality.

Of course, the transition must be managed properly. A just transition means investing in skills, real support for workers and targeted regional development. The Minister has been clear that the benefits of that change must be felt across all communities and that no area is left behind. I support the Bill at Second Stage, and I look forward to its continued progress through the House.

Mr Honeyford: Alliance fully supports the Bill, and I am glad to speak in favour of it. The debate is also an opportunity to highlight the fact that the Department needs to match the ambition of the legislation with the pace of transition to renewables as we go into the future. Repealing petroleum licensing is absolutely the right call, but, in practice, it has already been happening, and it simply brings the legislation up to date with the day-to-day. Removing fossil fuel exploration is one side of the issue of transition, but we urgently need to fill the other side of the space with clean, affordable and home-grown energy.

The Bill removes the Department's statutory powers to issue licences for petroleum exploring or extraction, but, as has been said in the Chamber, we need to be honest about this. This is a tidying-up exercise, as licences were not being issued anyway, and it simply brings the legal framework up to date with what has been happening in practice. That is long overdue. Alliance has been calling consistently for that, and we welcome it. We have called for a ban on the licensing of drilling and extraction for years, and I am glad to finally debate the legislation to deliver it. I thank the Minister for bringing the Bill forward, but I hope that it is only the start of what we need to see.

Tomorrow, we are debating another piece of legislation, again on transition. However, we are not seeing coming through to the Committee the ambition on energy policy from the Department. We need to see a master plan that takes a plan-led approach to all of the policy areas and gives communities confidence about what is happening in the area. For transition, we urgently need a firm legislative timetable for a renewable electricity price guarantee (REPG) scheme Bill. If the Minister can outline today a timetable for that and can give a categoric commitment on when that full option will be delivered, that would be really useful. We need to bring energy security in Northern Ireland and across this island, working together to deliver for everybody. More home-grown renewable energy means that families and businesses are less exposed to the shocks in global volatility that we have seen in recent weeks. Consumers do not see the difference. They only see their bill going up; they never seem to see it coming down.

We do not need the backwards step of moving towards the GB energy market at a time when GB is moving towards Europe. We need to see a sustainable way to drop prices for people and get more renewable generation online quickly in Northern Ireland. We need that plan-led approach from the Department; we need the interconnector built with the South; and we need direct interconnection with Europe and the Celtic interconnector, which is coming online in the next year or so. We need to share on this island and work together in the long term for the people who live on it. Offshore planning needs brought together, and every delay costs households in their pockets. Ending petroleum licensing is the right economic call, but the economic dividend flows only if we accelerate the alternative. Closing one door is progress, but leaving the other door stuck is not good enough.

Alliance supports the Bill unreservedly; it is long overdue. I am happy for the Bill to progress, but I want to make the point to the Department that closing the door to petroleum is only a fraction of the job. The work that matters to ordinary people outside the Building is what comes next.

There is a year left in the mandate, and people need to see delivery. We need legislation that improves their lives and that transitions us to using renewable energy. The legislative timetable is tight, but all parties have signed up to at least 80% electricity consumption from renewable sources by 2030 and to the 2050 targets. The same cross-party consensus can ensure that the REPG goes through at the same pace, unlocking investment and delivering energy security.

We have led on renewables before, and the potential is there for us to do so again. We need to get on with delivery and then see it through for people on the ground. I appreciate that it is in the Minister's inbox, but some sort of timetable would be helpful. I am happy to support the Bill's Second Stage.

Ms D Armstrong: The UUP supports the Bill at its Second Stage and the clear direction that it sets for Northern Ireland and its energy ambitions. At its core, the ban on all forms of petroleum exploration and production in Northern Ireland recognises the importance of protecting our environment and of investing in renewable energy to provide energy security and sustainability. The risks associated with onshore petroleum exploration and extraction are well documented: groundwater contamination; biodiversity loss; threats to tourism, as Pádraig mentioned; and long-term environmental uncertainty. It is right that we take such concerns seriously and act decisively.

The Bill provides certainty. It moves beyond temporary measures and establishes a clear and consistent position, bringing to an end onshore petroleum licensing. In doing so, it removes ambiguity and ensures that environmental standards are not subject to shifting positions in the future. The Department has listened to the findings of the 2024 consultation, in which 95% of the 382 responses supported the preferred policy option of an eventual ban on all forms of onshore petroleum exploration and production. The Northern Ireland Executive approved that as the preferred policy option in December 2024.

It has been recognised through Committee scrutiny that the transition will be managed responsibly. The two existing applications will be withdrawn, and appropriate reimbursement will be provided. That is a correct and fair approach to take, as it provides clarity not only for communities but for those directly affected. Although some have pointed to the potential economic benefits of petroleum exploration, the evidence to date has shown those benefits to be limited and commercially unviable.

Set against the environmental risks and the strength of public concern, the Bill reflects a balanced and proportionate judgement. More broadly, it is about the kind of economy and society that we want to build. Northern Ireland's future prosperity will be defined not by onshore petroleum extraction but by sustainable investment and sustainable energy and by meeting climate targets through innovation and the responsible use of our resources. The Bill aligns with that vision. Our approach should be balanced and responsible, supporting sustainable development, encouraging innovation and ensuring that robust safeguards are always in place to protect citizens. By doing that, we can achieve long-term prosperity that is economically sound and socially just.

By supporting the Bill, we are choosing clarity, environmental responsibility and a long-term approach to economic development. The Bill is a measured and necessary step, and I look forward to examining it further in Committee.

Ms Murphy: I support the Bill and welcome its Second Stage. For many people in County Fermanagh, the legislation has been a long time coming. As Members may know, I introduced a private Member's Bill in the previous mandate to ban fracking. Unfortunately, we ran out of time to get it through Committee Stage.

For years, people in rural communities, especially in County Fermanagh and County Leitrim, have lived with the fear of what fracking could mean for their environment, for their health and for the future of communities that have been there for generations. Those communities, however, did not stay silent. Instead, they organised, campaigned and made it clear that they would not accept damage being inflicted on their area, and they were right to do so. This is about environmental justice, public health and the right of communities to have a say on what happens where they live. We cannot talk about a just transition while leaving the door open to harmful practices from the past.

The Bill is an important step forward. It reflects the determination of communities who refuse to be ignored. It recognises the power of local campaigning and shows what can happen when people stand together. I commend my colleague Caoimhe Archibald for introducing the Bill. It sends a clear message to communities that the Assembly listens. I urge all Members to support the Bill.

Mr Gaston: Two weeks ago, the Assembly voted against costing the net zero lunacy in Stormont Departments. Last week the House supported the idea of creating new anaerobic digesters in Northern Ireland, which will deliver the Minister's vision for stock cuts by stealth if we continue down that route. Now, this week, we have a Bill in front of us that will remove any potential for helping to secure our own energy market in the future.

The Bill is presented as merely technical legislation, but it is nothing of the sort. It is a deliberate, permanent policy choice to close down an entire sector of potential economic activity in Northern Ireland. When one reads the explanatory and financial memorandum, that reality is inescapable. Clause 1 talks about repealing key provisions of the Petroleum (Production) Act (Northern Ireland) 1964.

Mr Delargy: I thank the Member for giving way. I hear what he says. He talks about closing down opportunities, but the evidence points clearly to the fact that any economic opportunity is not feasible and not viable, so will he revise his remarks on that basis?

Mr Gaston: Absolutely not, because the Member will hear in my speech that, while current viability has not been found, producing the Bill and pushing it forward will close down any future opportunity. On that basis, if no economic activity comes from this, why the need for legislation? Why the need to close it indefinitely? Why not let it stay open and run its course?

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. I share many of his concerns, albeit very few licences have ever been granted, and there are very few at present. There is no categorical evidence to suggest that the amount of exploration has proven explicitly that there is no potential source of home-grown energy in the future.

I note that most Members' comments today have focused on the fracking aspect of the legislation, and there are legitimate arguments for that. However, the Bill contains a provision for a complete ban on all petroleum exploration. Does the Member agree that, given that the reports suggest that considerable gaps in information remain, perhaps the Minister could have explored option 3, which was to ban the fracking aspect and leave petroleum exploration for the future?

Mr Gaston: That would have been a more sensible way forward. If you have a problem with fracking, you should look at it solely. However, what we have today is a blanket ban, which will mean that, in future, if evidence is produced that we have a natural resource that we can utilise and would help to secure our energy future, this place took the decision in 2026 that it knew best. It could see into the future and did not want to utilise any of that because it would have meant setting aside our green ideology. The tentacles of this place come up now and again that it knows best. If it is anything to do with climate change, we can have nothing to do with it. That is why the blanket ban is coming in, because this place thinks that it knows better and is trying to ensure that nobody has the opportunity to do further exploration in the future.

Go back to the 1964 Act. Why did we have those provisions? They were introduced to permit the Department to grant licences for the exploration and production of oil and gas. The Bill removes the legal ability for Northern Ireland even to consider developing our oil and gas resources. All we have to do is look around at what is happening in the world today. We have talked about the cost of living and debated what is happening in Iran. If we could play our part — if we were to discover such natural resources in Northern Ireland — why would this place move to a point at which that could not even be explored? We have that position in the North Sea. The British Government will not drill — they will not utilise that — but they are happy to go to Norway, which drills the oil from the North Sea, to get it and bring it to Northern Ireland. It just does not make sense.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. Whilst the Bill does not preclude offshore drilling — it is important to draw that distinction — does he agree that what is needed for an energy-efficient and energy-secure future is a healthy mix of renewable and fossil fuels? Does he also agree that, despite what some in the House have suggested, renewable energy sources, whether wind or solar, do not necessarily mean lower bills for our consumers?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I remind Members that interventions are meant to be brief. While the aim of the Second Stage of the Bill is to move it into Committee and the scope is quite wide, you are straying into areas that are not part of the Bill. I just remind Members of that.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I will respond briefly to Mr Buckley. As we have seen, it is a cert that using renewable energy will drive our energy costs up, because everybody in Northern Ireland will have to pay for the infrastructure.

The purpose of the Bill is not to regulate, to control or to restrict but to abolish the opportunity for us to do further exploration. Why? Is it because of economics or evidence? We have already heard that there are gaps in the evidence. Not a bit of it. Paragraph 5 of the explanatory and financial memorandum makes it clear that the policy is driven by the need to align climate change commitments and the transition to net zero. My goodness, that is what it is: the ideology of constantly going after green targets and the foolish lunacy of net zero. Paragraph 6 plainly states that petroleum exploration is considered to be incompatible with those climate objectives — the same climate objectives set by this place. Those climate objectives mean that we cannot even build the A5, but that is what the Bill is founded on. It is based on flawed decisions taken in this place that have been found to stifle much-needed infrastructure safety upgrades.

This Bill is not being advanced because the resources are not there or because they have been fully explored and found to be inadequate; it is being advanced because the Executive have decided, because of the green ideology, that those resources must never be developed. That is despite the fact that paragraph 5 of the memorandum admits that there would be economic benefit to Northern Ireland. Yes, it says that that would not be significant, but that is hardly grounds for bringing in what is before the House today and banning any further exploration of the possibilities. It may come as a surprise to some in the House, but it is not unknown for Departments to get things wrong. All that we have to do is look at the Department that is advancing the Bill today. What if the House had legislated in such a way as to make it impossible to change the renewable heat incentive (RHI) scheme? The Bill seeks not to regulate but to permanently shut the door on oil and gas exploration in Northern Ireland. There is not much thought in the Bill for the energy security of tomorrow.

Paragraph 4 of the memorandum acknowledges the wider energy context that resulted in licences being introduced in the 1960s. Yes, the last licence was handed back in 2020, but who is to say that new discoveries will not be made in the future? The licences were introduced because, as paragraph 4 tells us:

We will not get that —

Mr Delargy: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: — with wind or solar, because they change, whereas oil and gas are reliable; they can be depended on.

I am happy to give way.

Mr Delargy: I thank the Member for giving way again. I note the point that he made about RHI. He will note the fact that the Minister has taken decisive action to fix the mess that the DUP made of RHI. The Minister has taken decisive action on that.

Mr Gaston: The Member has completely missed the point that I was making. What mess would we be in now if a law had come in that meant that RHI could not be changed? Yet today we are being asked to put through to the Committee a Bill that would mean that the door would be entirely shut and that fresh legislation would be required for such measures to come back in. Why on earth would someone looking at the world today think that we would want to remove the possibility of servicing and securing our energy market in Northern Ireland?

At paragraph 7, the Department relies on consultation responses, noting that a large majority of people supported a ban. My goodness, public consultation is not a substitute for strategic responsibility. Leadership is not about simply counting responses and legislating accordingly, because of the views of organised and motivated green activists.

What about the long-term consequences of the Bill? They are clear: the Bill will create a permanent legislative barrier to accessing resources that may lie beneath our feet. That is not to say that those resources are there; it is about leaving the door open so that, if we were to explore and find something, we could utilise it. The Bill firmly shuts that door, and fresh primary legislation would be required to reverse its consequences.

We are witnessing something wider than petroleum policy. We are seeing the continued embedding of the climate-driven approach that we have taken to legislation here, whereby entire sectors are ruled out, regardless of our needs or of potential future opportunities. The Bill does not future-proof; it takes the green ideology that has already resulted in the A5 being torpedoed and other road infrastructure projects being put back. It builds on that lunacy —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Timothy, get back to the Bill, please.

Mr Gaston: — and shuts the door on an entire sector. That will put at risk, rather than positively impact on, future exploration in Northern Ireland. Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Timothy.

I call the Minister to conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech.

Dr Archibald: I thank Members for their contributions. I am encouraged by the support from around the Chamber. I anticipate that, when the Bill goes to the Economy Committee, it will be fully scrutinised. I thank the members of the Economy Committee for their contributions to the debate.

As I set out in my opening remarks, the Bill is an important step in supporting our decarbonisation journey. It aligns with our legislative obligations, the energy strategy and the conclusions of independent research. Exploration for oil and gas would run contrary to those commitments and be unlikely to bring meaningful benefit to the local economy or to consumers.

I will pick up on some points that Members raised in the debate. A number of Members spoke to the broader need for plans for energy security and affordability. I know that Members recognise the ongoing work in that regard and that we continue to pursue that in order to ensure that we have more affordable and secure energy. I note Mr Brett's commitment, as Chair of the Economy Committee, to scrutinise the Bill fully while reflecting that there were 382 responses to the consultation, the vast majority of which were very supportive of the Bill. I believe that only one response supported outright the continuation of licensing, but the Committee will get into the detail of that.

Sinéad and David referred to the need for longer-term planning for energy security and stepping up the pace of transition. On the plans for the renewable electricity price guarantee scheme, a Bill is being drafted, and it remains the intention to get that introduced before summer recess. Obviously, we have a tight time frame now, so everyone is working at pace to progress things as quickly as possible before the end of the mandate.

I note the comments of Diana and Áine about the impact in County Fermanagh, where licences were most recently applied for, and the concern of communities about all of that. One of the things that the Bill does is provide a level of clarity and certainty for those communities that we have a long-term position on this.

Mr Gaston set out clearly his objections. The reality is that we have climate obligations in legislation that we are obliged to deliver on. It has been clearly set out, through independent research, that economic benefit is unlikely to be delivered through exploration. There has been an ability for nearly 62 years to grant licences, but commercially viable oil or gas has yet to be identified. Given the direction of travel on the transition to net zero, we want to invest in renewables. We want to send a signal to the markets that we want to have renewable investment here, and the Bill very much helps us to progress all of that.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Minister for giving way. She, of all people, will know that the energy context of today is not the same as it was six months ago, never mind a year ago, and that it will perhaps change in the future. She will know my concerns about energy security and, indeed, affordability. Notwithstanding the comments that have been made across the House about fracking — we know that the Bill does much more than address that — why did the Department not consider going forward with option 3, which would have banned fracking but allowed other petroleum exploration, given not just the number of people who supported that in their response to the consultation but the wider energy context that we live in today?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his contribution. I know that he will play a full part in scrutinising the Bill once it gets to Committee Stage, which, going by the comments around the Chamber, seems likely.

My response to his question is that it sits in the same context of sending a strong signal about being a region that wants to invest in renewables and giving clarity and certainty around all of that. I take his point about the energy circumstances that we are in right now, but the fact remains that, if, in some different world, we found oil or gas here and explored for it, it would still be traded on the global markets and would still be subject to the volatility that we see in those commodity markets today. The direction of travel that we clearly want to pursue is greater self-sufficiency. That will take time to deliver, but it is important that we have a clear position on it, and the Bill helps to underpin that. I am sure that all that will be debated at the Committee as well.

I hope that I have addressed most of the points that have been made. I am grateful to everyone who has contributed to the debate on the Bill today. I look forward to it progressing through its next stages.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Some Members: Aye.

Mr Gaston: No.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I note your objection, but the Ayes have it.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That concludes the Second Stage of the Petroleum Exploration and Licensing (Repeal) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Committee for the Economy.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister, I will just give you a heads-up that I will start this item of business, but I may need to break off for Question Time. Is that OK?.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I beg to move

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

Minister, if you want, I can set this aside until after Question Time, or do you want to make a few remarks now?

Mr Muir: I will make a few remarks now, and you can cut me off.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Fair enough. I will cut you off, no bother. I do not want to cut you off, but go ahead.

Mr Muir: I am grateful for the opportunity to move the motion today. Before I start, I will set the context for the debate. We are debating it as a result of the issues that are facing not just Northern Ireland but the world as a result of climate change. I was at an event this morning that was organised by Ernst & Young (EY), and I commend its leadership and the wider leadership shown by the business community on climate action in Northern Ireland. The event was about profiling the science and evidence that we are aware of on the realities of climate change. Lots of inconvenient truths are being told, and it is imperative for us to act. This morning’s event set out the four scenarios, and we owe it to the people of Northern Ireland to take action to ensure that many of those scenarios do not play out. We are seeing the realities of climate change in Northern Ireland, and it will get worse if we do not take action in response to those issues. There are also opportunities for green growth and the decarbonisation of our society, and it is vital that we grasp them.

We must ensure that our actions are just and fair and that nobody is left behind, and that is why I am bringing the just transition commission regulations to the House today. I look forward to the debate and to the support associated with it. The Assembly's approval of the Climate Change (Just Transition Commission) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2026 will be an historic moment for the House. The establishment of the just transition commission is a legal requirement under section 37 of the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. It also delivers on a key commitment in the Programme for Government 2024-27, and I am pleased to bring the legislation to the Assembly to implement the Act and establish that important body. As Members are aware, reducing emissions across our economy requires collaborative action across all the Departments. The Act is explicit that the transition must be just, fair and equitable. To support Departments in meeting that legal requirement, the Act places a duty on my Department to establish an independent just transition commission for Northern Ireland and for the regulations to be put in place to establish the body.

I will briefly outline the statutory role of the commission under section 37 of the Act. First, the commission has an essential oversight function. It will assess whether Departments have properly applied the just transition principle when developing emissions-reduction policies for inclusion in climate action plans, sectoral plans and any agriculture or just transition fund. Secondly, the commission will have an important advisory function. It will provide expert guidance to Departments on how proposed policies, strategies and plans align with the just transition principles and objectives set out in the Act.

I thank those who passed the Act and ensured that a just transition was a core principle. At its core, a just transition is about ensuring that as we move from a high-emission to a low-emission economy, workers, communities, vulnerable groups and regions are supported and enabled to benefit from the changes. Section 30 of the Act makes that a statutory consideration with 11 just transition objectives, including the creation of quality jobs, support for affected communities and tackling social and economic inequality.

I turn to the membership. The Act requires representation from seven sectors, including academia, agriculture, civic society, environmental groups, fisheries, trade unions and youth groups. The Act also allows for additional representation, and the regulations have been developed within that framework. There has been a high level of public interest in the just transition and the role that the commission will play. The need for a just transition is raised at every public engagement event that my Department or I have held on climate change, which demonstrates its importance to people, communities and stakeholders across Northern Ireland. While it was not legally required, I considered it essential to engage widely, given the high level of public interest in the topic. My Department undertook a 10-week public consultation supported by targeted engagement events with the groups required to be represented on the commission by the Act.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister, thank you. You were tearing through that, but Question Time begins at 2.00 pm, as you will appreciate.

Members can take their ease until we get the Speaker in to chair Question Time. The Minister will continue the debate after Question Time.

Mrs O'Neill (The First Minister): Engagement with the European Union remains an important priority, given our unique situation under the Windsor framework. In the past year, the deputy First Minister and I have represented the Executive at the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee at its meetings in April 2025 and, most recently, in February 2026 to ensure that our views are presented to the EU and the British Government on the implementation of the Windsor framework.

We engaged directly with senior EU representatives, including the EU ambassador, Pedro Serrano, alongside ambassadors from several EU member states, during a visit in late 2025. Through the Interministerial Group on UK-EU Relations and bilateral discussions with the Minister for the Cabinet Office, we have engaged with the British Government to ensure that our interests are represented in the ongoing negotiations with the EU. Through our Brussels office, we maintain strong working relationships with EU institutions and member states, ensuring that relevant developments in EU policy and legislation are fed back to our Departments.

During St Patrick's week, our junior Ministers travelled to Brussels to raise our profile with key EU partners, including the chair of the European Parliament delegation to Britain, Sandro Gozi MEP.

Finally, Members will be aware of the Executive Office's role in supporting delivery of the EU PEACE PLUS programme, which continues to make a difference to communities here.

Mr Blair: I thank the First Minister for her reply. We are still awaiting not only an international relations strategy but the promised Europe strategy. Given evidence that the UK is pivoting closer to the European Union and its economic area, should those strategies not be addressed urgently rather than be left on the shelf?

Mrs O'Neill: There is obviously a lot of global volatility. In our international relations strategy, we need to take account of all the changes that are happening. The Member is, however, right to say that it is clear that the British Government plan to introduce and enact new UK-EU arrangements. We need to play our part, and we then need to ensure that any new arrangements are reflected in our future international relations strategy. We have engaged with Nick Thomas-Symonds on the substance of the legislation that is to be introduced, because we want to have early sight of it so that we are able to influence it. All of what I have mentioned will keep resulting in changes to our international relations strategy, so that piece of work needs to be done in order to allow us to produce our strategy, which we are committed to doing.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I thank John Blair for tabling the question. Does the First Minister agree that strengthened cooperation, particularly with Europe, in order to maximise opportunities for people here is the only way in which we will see tangible benefits?

Mrs O'Neill: I do agree, particularly given that we continue to deal with the outworkings of what was a divisive Brexit and with the post-Brexit reality in which we all now operate. There is no escaping the fact that Brexit has had long and lasting negative impacts on our economy, our businesses, our farmers, our students and, of late, our community and voluntary sector. To mitigate some of those impacts, we have to take every opportunity that we have to rebuild relationships. As I said, I welcome the fact that enhanced discussions are taking place at British Government and EU level to improve relationships, to provide stability and to iron out barriers, where they occur, for businesses and consumers alike.

Alongside doing that piece of work, we have dual market access, which is a unique selling point for us. Caoimhe Archibald continues to drive forward our strategy. She has travelled across Europe to try to drum up interest in this place as being a great place in which to invest, which, in turn, will grow our economy. We therefore have to maximise that opportunity, because it is a strength, and, at the same time, we have to minimise all the negativity that there is about the post-Brexit trading reality.

Mr Kingston: It is clear that the protocol and the Windsor framework continue to provide considerable challenges to businesses across Northern Ireland. Does the First Minister agree that tinkering around the edges is not enough and that we need the Government to act decisively to protect trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

Mrs O'Neill: I want to maximise all our opportunities, but the reality is that, sponsored by the Member's party, we now have a post-Brexit trading reality. The rest of the parties of the Assembly and Executive have worked to try to find mitigations for the worst impacts of the outworkings of Brexit and to reach into dual market access. There is no doubt that there are barriers to trade, and I do not want to see barriers to trade across this island or between our islands. I want there to be maximum opportunities for all our businesses to tap into some of that economic growth, but the reality is that there will be ongoing changes in this post-Brexit world.

However, we will continue to raise those issues, as we have done the whole way through. I outlined in the initial answer some of the engagement that we have had with all the relevant Ministers, which we did because we want them to hear the challenges that our businesses are facing and we want to find solutions. The legislation on the new strategic partnership at British Government and EU level will hopefully deal with some of those things. Let us keep trying to find answers to the problems that arise in the post-Brexit world.

Dr Aiken: First Minister, last week, the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee was in Brussels and had briefings from the excellent Office of the Northern Ireland Executive, which is not the most catchily named office. It came out that the additional staff there are only there on a year-by-year basis. If we are serious about, as you say, making the opportunities work, can we move those staff on to a permanent employment structure rather than a year-by-year arrangement, which does not speak to the permanence of relationships or improving long-term relationships?

Mrs O'Neill: The Member has visited the office in Brussels and knows that it is there to support the Executive in our relationships with the EU. I do not engage with individual HR matters. However, it is important that, if we are to build good relationships, which have been very much damaged during the whole Brexit debacle, it is a good thing to have permanent staff to build those relationships and get things done. I am sure that the Member follows this, given his role on the Committee, but there is also a quarterly report to the Assembly on the work that is happening in our office in Brussels so that we are transparent about what is happening. Hopefully, that is helpful to Members. The ongoing staffing issue is an issue for the Civil Service more widely.

Ms McLaughlin: First Minister, the Irish presidency of the EU is coming up. That is very significant and is an opportunity to help us build relationships. Have you made any contacts in order to strengthen those relationships during that period?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes, I have raised that directly with the Irish Government. It is important that, when Ireland has the presidency for six months, we are part of that. Across all sectors, there will be a huge amount of engagement during that six-month period, and we want to have a part in that. I have made that representation directly to the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and to Helen McEntee in her role as Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. I look forward to seeing how that unfolds when Ireland takes the presidency in June.

Mrs O'Neill: Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will answer questions 2 and 3 together.

We recognise and share the significant concerns that many people have about rising energy costs, which are compounding the existing cost-of-living pressures. We met the Prime Minister on 12 March and raised those concerns. We have since written twice to Keir Starmer to highlight the disproportionate effect that higher energy costs have on local constituents and businesses, and we have called on him directly, as all parties of the Executive, to bring forward a package of measures to support those under pressure. We have also requested an urgent meeting to discuss the escalating budgetary challenges that we face.

As you know, fuel prices are largely set by international markets and taxation, so there are clear limitations on what the Executive can directly control. Whilst we are pleased that the Executive have agreed to provide £100 fuel vouchers to those who are most in need, we recognise that a much more comprehensive approach is required, and that is what our engagement with the Prime Minister is about. We are determined to do all that we can locally to ensure that we are fully informed about all potential impacts and mitigations. We have also established a cross-departmental strategic policy group to report to the Executive, which will help to facilitate a coordinated and effective policy response across government.

Mr McGuigan: First Minister, I thank you for that answer and the work that you and your Executive colleagues are doing to impress on the British Government the need for help for citizens here with the rising fuel and energy costs. Further to that, last week, we saw the British Government seeking to deflect from the Executive's effort to secure a fair and adequate Budget for the North, when they challenged your assertion that funding here would be significantly higher if we were treated on the same basis as Scotland and Wales. Will you set out broadly and put on record how you came to those figures?

Mrs O'Neill: Thank you for that question and for creating that opportunity, because it is really important. Public services here have been systematically underfunded for generations, and the British Government's austerity politics and policies have really constrained our ability to invest across all our public services. They have compounded the problems that we see in Health, Education and Infrastructure. The figures that I referenced are certainly not arbitrary; they derive from established work by Professor Gerry Holtham as part of his review and from subsequent analysis by the Fiscal Council. That work assessed relative need across the devolved Administrations. Broadly speaking, when you directly compare us with Scotland and Wales, you see that it is just over 100% in Scotland and 115% in Wales, yet they both have been funded above their identified level of need. We are asking for the same thing, because it would make a hugely significant difference in what we could invest in our public services. The Treasury should go back to the drawing board and look at its own published figures, because we draw on those figures as well.

The reality is that, because of underfunding and our population's identified needs, our current allocation is unfair based on direct comparisons with Scotland and Wales. The Executive are one in saying that we want fairness for people here and a proper funding model that allows us to support our public services and deliver for families who are getting it really tight right now. We will continue that conversation, but last week's efforts by the Treasury were more about distraction and deflection from how it has failed people here.

Mr Wilson: Farmers, hauliers and care workers are struggling to cope with the soaring costs of petrol and diesel, so the First Minister will be well aware that only the Government at Westminster have the financial power to cut fuel duty and scrap harmful net zero taxes, yet, unfortunately, the MP for Newry and Armagh — her Sinn Féin colleague — refuses to turn up to the House of Commons to debate those issues. First Minister, how can you stand over that blatant and repeated abdication of duty, and when will you end the "stay away, but take the pay" abstentionist policy?

Mrs O'Neill: Good party lines. The DUP attack lines in advance of the election are well noted. Let us focus on what the public at home want to hear from the Chamber. They want to hear that you and I are working together on their behalf. They want to hear that every Executive party has their back. They want to know that we will challenge for proper funding for our public services and work together to try to deliver for them on a day-to-day basis. That is what I am here for. That is what I continue to do.

Mr Wilson: You have said that you want to continue the conversation.

Mrs O'Neill: You asked me a question. I am on my feet right now.

Mr Wilson: Those conversations are continued at Westminster.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mrs O'Neill: The reality is that the Executive have sent a letter to the British Prime Minister and asked for an urgent meeting to discuss the issues in a twofold way. Our current Budget allocation is insufficient, as your party agrees. Also, what does a proper cost-of-living package look like for people? How are we going to support our farmers? The deputy First Minister and I met representatives from the Ulster Farmers' Union last week and talked about the challenges that farmers face when it comes to fuel costs. Again, that lever sits with Westminster. I want to know what Keir Starmer is going to do to support our local farmers.

We want a proper cost-of-living package, because people are going to get it really hard, and we do not know where it will all end. From day 1, when your party was cheerleading for that illegal war, we said that it would have real-life implications for households.

That is what is happening now. People see it in their weekly bills; they see it in their food shops; and they see it when they put diesel in their cars. I say this to you: stop the nonsense. Work for people, and work with the rest of the Executive parties to get a proper package for people.

Ms Nicholl: Recently, at the Economy Committee, we had presentations from Community Energy Northern Ireland, and it struck me that, at this time of cost-of-living crisis, with the need for greater emphasis on energy security, what is happening in communities is not just about energy security; it is about anti-poverty and what is better for the environment. First Minister, could your Department take a more active role in supporting community energy in Northern Ireland?

Mrs O'Neill: The Member will know from her work on the Committee that we have an energy policy. There is so much volatility in the world. If you even chart the recent years since Brexit to where we are today and everything that has happened, you see that all those international events have an implication on people's lives. The best thing that we can do is try to cushion people from some of those big shocks. One of the tools that are open to us is around having a good energy policy, looking at wind independence and at how we can buffer people from some of the worst excesses of it. That is already there in the energy brief in the Department for the Economy. I will work with Caoimhe to do everything that we can to cushion people against all the economic shocks. That is an area of work that we should all work on together.

Mr Durkan: We in the Opposition agree that we need more from the UK Government, but can the First Minister update us on or give us any insight into the conversations going on across the Executive about what interventions or actions can be taken now to alleviate the stress of the situation on people, businesses and public services?

Mrs O'Neill: As I said in my initial answer, we are coming at it in a holistic way, with a dual-track approach, to see what we as an Executive can do in the here and now to support families. Just the week before last, we announced the £100 oil voucher scheme. We will also have the £30 electricity scheme. Those are the things that the Executive can do.

Alongside that, we have stood up structures. We have civil contingency arrangements in place to plan for the winter ahead because we do not know what it will look like. We do not know where the war will end. We do not know how long it will go on, and we do not know what it will mean for fuel charges, food charges and everything else that might happen. We have asked the head of the Civil Service to establish a strategic policy group with all the permanent secretaries. That will look at the whole gamut and at every potential challenge that might come down the tracks. It is about getting ready to be ahead of how we can respond to some of that. It is important at that level because we need to ensure that, as an Executive, we continue to chart our way through it and plan for some or all the eventualities that will potentially come our way. The lessons to be learned from COVID really ring true when you are planning for what could be such a devastating time further into the winter for people.

Mrs O'Neill: With your permission, I will answer questions 4 and 10 together.

The Executive are focused on delivery, improving lives, supporting economic growth and ensuring that our infrastructure meets the needs of our people. A significant amount of work has already gone into shaping the draft investment strategy and progressing a range of enabling actions needed to tackle some of the barriers to delivery. That will ensure that we are well placed to realise the ambition that will be set out in the strategy.

We are confident that the substantial work that has already been completed, together with the progress on the enabling actions, sets a very clear direction. There are still some key considerations to be worked through. The remaining work is focused on ensuring that the strategy is robust, evidence-based and capable of delivering real and lasting outcomes for people here.

Once the strategy is finalised, the timeline for approval and publication will be a matter for the Executive.

Mr O'Toole: First Minister, you said that there has been "a significant amount of work" and that there has been "progress on the enabling actions": that is simply not good enough. In early 2024, just after the Executive were re-established, in response to a question for written answer from Paula Bradshaw, you and your colleague the deputy First Minister said that the final draft of the investment strategy had been presented. In answer to my colleague Colin McGrath this time last year, you and the deputy First Minister said:

It is more than two years on from the restoration of the Executive. Your party and the DUP are good at blaming each other and quick to shift blame to London, but you, collectively, have not published an investment strategy: that is shambolic. Where is it?

Mrs O'Neill: I could say that you are quick to let London off the hook. The reality is that we are working our way through it. I have, I believe, said to you before in the House that that is not happening as quickly as I would like. We are working towards the final version of the strategy. We have to understand what our Budget allocation looks like before we can finalise the strategy. We are talking about a significant plan — a strategic vision for the next 25 years, along with a 10-year infrastructure investment plan. We are talking about investing £32 billion, so it is really important that we get that strategy right.

I am sure that the Member will understand that there are other things at play, such as the implications of the A5 judgement, which will be important for infrastructure projects. Further refinement work has taken place at official level. We are not quite there yet, but, if we can get to the other side of a finalised Budget position, we will be able to move to publish a draft investment strategy.

Mr McGlone: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chéad-Aire fosta.

What specific targets, timelines and accountability measures are contained in the draft investment strategy to ensure that it does what, you say, it is anticipated to do, which is to deliver measurable private-sector investment, good jobs and regional balance across all parts of the North?

Mrs O'Neill: As someone who also represents a rural constituency, I will absolutely ensure that regional balance is built into the infrastructure plans. That is a must, and, since the Executive returned two years ago, we have demonstrated that regional balance is a core principle of what we are trying to achieve across all policy areas. The investment strategy will recognise the need for regional balance and the need to consider the specific requirements of rural communities, which have particular challenges that do not occur in urban settings. The strategy identifies the need to enhance our built and rural environments and highlights the role that improving transport links and continued investment in digital connectivity can play in helping rural communities to thrive. We have also done a rural needs assessment. The core of the strategy has a lot built into it. When we launch it, you will be able to see all of that for yourself.

Mr Gildernew: My question is linked to that answer. Historical underinvestment over very many years has resulted in a reduction in opportunities and prosperity in areas west of the Bann. Does the First Minister agree that, in order to succeed, the strategy must tackle that and reverse that underinvestment?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes. That very much chimes with what I have just said. We have to ensure that prosperity is felt across the board. We cannot have communities being left behind. The reality is that, after the first two years, people can see that things are changing. That is really visible in Derry and the north-west, with the Magee expansion and the money that has been invested in the city deals. Those numbers are increasing. One of the projects that go to the heart of people feeling that they are getting their fair share is the A5, which has been caught up in the courts. Similarly, the Enniskillen bypass and many other big infrastructure projects are all now in growth deals, and there is cross-party commitment to those. It is now about making those happen, which means getting a finalised Budget and putting an investment strategy in place.

Mr Brooks: The First Minister has said that the public want to see parties working together. I believe that, in a speech at the weekend, she also said that she would leave no stone unturned in the delivery of the A5. I presume that that applies to other infrastructure projects. Does she agree that, in order to create that welcoming environment for investment, we should make sure that climate change legislation does not stand in the way and delay large infrastructure projects in Northern Ireland?

Mrs O'Neill: I see that you were tuning into our ard-fheis

at the weekend; well done, you.

Unfortunately, you and your party have tried to pit one thing against the other. I believe that we can deliver really well for our climate and protect our future generations' world whilst delivering our infrastructure projects. We will leave no stone unturned when it comes to the A5. You are trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Do not forget that your party voted for the climate change legislation as well. The thing here is this: how can we do well by our environment and deliver infrastructure projects? That is the challenge for all of us. We are not unique in that struggle: Scotland, Wales and elsewhere have similar challenges, as do the Dublin Government.

Let us find ways to protect our environment and build our infrastructure projects. I am certainly in that solution-focused mode; you should get into that space too.

Ms Bradshaw: First Minister, I will stay in the space of striking the balance between climate change and delivering the investment that all our communities deserve. It is over a year since the regulations allowing for the appointment of a Climate Commissioner came into force. Will you provide an update on the appointment of the commissioner?

Mrs O'Neill: I do not have the intended date for that. However, we passed the Bill, which means that we are obliged to bring forward the commissioner's appointment. I will write to the Member to provide a bit more detail on the timing of that.

Mr Speaker: Alan Chambers is not in his place.

Mrs O'Neill: We have been clear that we want to realise the immense economic, historical and reconciliation potential of the site and are committed to working with the Maze/Long Kesh board to maximise those opportunities for the benefit of all. We recognise that that will require us to move with consensus and sensitivity, and we are committed to working with the Maze/Long Kesh Development Corporation to achieve that. We are considering advice from officials on short- to medium-term priorities and options for the board. Discussions are ongoing at official level, and, over the coming weeks, we expect to receive further input to help frame our consideration of the way forward. We can assure the Member that the future of the site very much remains a live issue that we are committed to resolving.

Mrs Guy: Thank you, First Minister, for the response. We all know that political differences between the DUP and Sinn Féin are the barrier to progress on the site. What are you doing to make progress, and when will you meet the board of the Maze/Long Kesh Development Corporation? You last met in July 2024.

Mrs O'Neill: We will meet the board in the very near future. I do not have the date in front of me. You are right that there needs to be political agreement for the site to move forward. I want that. We can strike the right balance to have the site's historical, economic and social inclusion aspects delivered on, but that requires political will across all parties. Unfortunately, that is not there, but that is not to say that I accept that or give up on it. I will continue to try to move it forward.

Imagine if we could bring in the likes of National Museums to curate the site. There are ways of doing it that are respectful and dignified and that preserve the historical nature of the site but also allow us to open up its economic opportunities. I hope that we can get to that juncture. It has been a long time in the making, but I commend the people on the board for keeping things in a state of readiness, so that we are able to go for protecting the listed and retained buildings. Clearly, we need a political agreement in order to step forward and develop the site.

Ms Murphy: First Minister, I welcome your comment that the future of the site remains a live issue. Do you agree with me that fully regenerating the site would be transformative socially and economically and that it is time to move forward on that without delay?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes. I restate my commitment to delivering on the site. The people of Lagan Valley and across the North would really benefit from a political agreement that allows the site to be opened up, retains the listed and historic buildings, reaches for the economic potential and provides the opportunity to create thousands of jobs. We have to keep raising it in this forum; we have to keep talking about it; and we have to find a way forward that maximises the social and economic benefits of a fully regenerated Long Kesh site, which is what people really want to see. It is certainly what I want to see.

Mrs Cameron: The 108th anniversary of the formation of the Royal Air Force was marked on 1 April this year. The Ulster Aviation Society celebrated it with the handover of a Harrier jet from the Chief of the Air Staff. I am sure that the First Minister will demonstrate our working together by joining me in commending the work of the Ulster Aviation Society as an example of how listed buildings can be utilised and preserved.

Mrs O'Neill: As a charitable organisation, the Ulster Aviation Society plays a really important role in protecting and promoting our aviation heritage through saving, restoring and exhibiting heritage aircraft for public benefit.

It is a good example of something that is working well on the site. Imagine what we could do if we were to work together in the same vein to open up the site in its entirety to maximise its benefits and its historical nature. There is a lot there for everybody, so we just need to get political agreement.

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

Mrs O'Neill: There is no agreement in the Executive Office on the issue of reform, so, when I spoke at the weekend, I did so in my capacity as vice president of Sinn Féin about our proposals for reform. We will speak about those proposals over the next couple of weeks. It is not a matter for the Executive Office.

Mr O'Toole: It may not be a matter for the Executive Office, but it is a matter for this place, so, although I appreciate your indicating a rhetorical commitment to moving forward that agenda, the public out there will be somewhat sceptical. We are 20 years on from the St Andrews Agreement, in which the DUP and Sinn Féin, along with the British Government, undermined core principles of how this place works. We are two years on from the restoration of the institutions, yet there has been no progress made on the A5 or on Casement Park. The Executive cannot even set a Budget. As I said, I welcome the fact that there is now a rhetorical commitment to reform, but will you tell us what reform you want to see happen to make this place work? I say that because it is not working.

Mrs O'Neill: I follow with interest some of the work that is happening on the Assembly and Executive Review Committee. It is very clear that the people who have come before the Committee are not interested in window dressing, and some of your suggestions amount to window dressing. It has to be about how politics can work better. It has to be about how this institution can work better. I have told you repeatedly that I want to get to a place where I can announce my party's reform proposals. I will say more about them over the next number of weeks. As I said, however, that is not a matter for the Executive Office. I am sure that you will await that announcement with anticipation and that, after we make it, we will chat about our reform proposals.

Mrs O'Neill: I think that all of us condemn the attack on the PSNI station in Dunmurry at the weekend. Earlier today, the deputy First Minister, the Chief Constable, the chair of the Policing Board and I stood shoulder to shoulder to say that the people who engage in such activity have no support out there in society and no vision for the future. Anybody who has any information about what happened should give it to the PSNI.

Mr Harvey: There was always an alternative to violence. Will the First Minister take the opportunity to condemn all other bombings in Dunmurry during the IRA's terrorist campaign, including those perpetrated by Bobby Sands?

Mrs O'Neill: It is unfortunate that your party has decided to try to make some noise out of something that was such a harrowing event for the people of Dunmurry on Saturday night. Those people went through a horrific ordeal, as did the person whose car was hijacked and who was made to drive to the station. My thoughts are very much with them.

The alternative to conflict is the Good Friday Agreement. I believe in the Good Friday Agreement in all its parts, including the fulfilment of constitutional change through the question being put to the people. I am very much focused on that, as well as on the fact that, in two years' time, we will celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement. Over those 30 years, our society's transformation has been absolutely immense. We have moved away from conflict towards peace. There is nobody out there in society who is going to drive us backwards. We are interested only in going forwards.

Mrs O'Neill: I absolutely do. I am sure that everybody in the House has spoken to a young constituent who, after getting their licence and being really excited about getting out on the road, has purchased a car, only to find that the cost of insurance may be triple the cost of the car. I have spoken before about speaking to young people who were charged premiums of £4,500. I have heard that someone was charged up to £8,000. How is that fair for any young person, particularly a rural person? How will a young person get on the road if they cannot afford to pay that? I do not know too many young people who have just turned the age at which they can get their driving licence who can afford that kind of money for car insurance. We need to call out those insurance companies over those extortionate premiums and do everything that we can to get them brought down.

Ms Ennis: I totally concur with the First Minister. It is outrageous and unfair that our young people have to face those high insurance premiums. I know that the First Minister and the Infrastructure Minister are doing great work and have had conversations around how we tackle that. Will the First Minister outline what work is being done to tackle those huge insurance premiums?

Mrs O'Neill: I am keen that we try to do something about that and to steer insurance companies in the right direction. Many Members have spoken about it in the House. The Infrastructure Minister, Liz Kimmins, and I have been working together to try to take on some of those high insurance premiums. We have spoken directly to the industry body to try to challenge that. For example, Liz, in her Department, is introducing road safety schemes and the graduated driver licensing scheme. That, in itself, will be transformative for new and young drivers. Our young drivers should be rewarded with reduced insurance premiums for actually taking that approach. It is time to end the rip-off insurance premiums for young people and allow young people to get on the road safely and in a way that is affordable to them.

Mrs O'Neill: We have had debates in the past around the commitment to older people. I can say to the Member that we absolutely are taking action. We have an ageing population, and we have to plan for that across our health service and every other public service.

Last week, in particular, at our Executive meeting, when we were thinking of the cost of living and the cost of surviving right now, we were very mindful of the fact that many pensioners are feeling the impact of that. We do take them into consideration for every decision, but you are right about future planning for our health system, for making sure that we have a sufficient number of carers in the communities. You focus a lot on loneliness and how we can support people. I like to think that every decision that we make takes into account the needs of older people in all our policies.

Ms Sugden: First Minister, will you give a commitment that, before the end of the mandate, we will look into strategic planning for our ageing population? You referred to older people and how we have to be effective for them. Absolutely: they are as much part of society as any other age group. However, all public services will be impacted on — we see it already in the health service — if we do not start planning for the impact of an ageing population. It is irresponsible of the Government not to have looked at it before now. It was irresponsible 10 years ago. We need to do it, not today, not tomorrow but yesterday. Can I get that commitment from you?

Mrs O'Neill: Genuinely, a lot of that work is happening. It may be piecemeal: I am not too sure how consistent it is across the board, but I am happy to ask those questions to get a better understanding. For example, when it came to reviewing health and social care and how we support people who need home care packages, that was part of the strategic consideration. I am happy to ask all Ministers for their plans thus far.

Mrs O'Neill: Again, the Member will not be surprised to know that there is not a shared view of independence in the Executive Office. However, I did see the comments from John Swinney, the First Minister. Scotland will go to the polls in the next number of weeks. It looks as though the SNP will be returned to the First Minister post, and potentially, for the first time, there will be a nationalist First Minister in Wales also. That tells a story in itself. It tells you where people are at. It tells you that people are fed up with the shackles of Westminster. It tells you that people want to take control of their own destiny and have all the levers at home that are available to any of us who are elected to take control of their own self-determination and destiny. That is where the common ground sits, and I will absolutely be up for working with First Ministers who have the same view as we all reach for what we all want at the end of the day, which is a better life for the people whom we represent.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Unlike the Budgets in Scotland and in Wales, the North is funded well below need. Therefore, will the First Minister commit to continually putting the case for a fairer and better Budget to fund public services in the North?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes. The one thing for sure that the public want from us is that we work collectively and get a properly funded Budget that allows us to invest in our public services, whether in health or education or to help people with childcare or to help them get through the cost-of-living crisis. The reality is that the Budget, as it stands, is completely inadequate. That will be the case year after year if they do not identify the needs that we have and meet us in being able to deliver for the people here.

The collective job of our Executive right now — we are unified in this — is making the case for a proper and fairer funding model. It is something that is appropriate and right. I really dislike it when people talk about begging bowl politics. This is not a begging bowl; this is about our people and how we invest in the health service and in education, including in special educational needs, and how we help people through the cost-of-living crisis. Those are the things that are really important to people.

Mrs O'Neill: Yes, I do, and that is why I made the point about window dressing. Window dressing does not cut it. We need to see reform that actually helps politics to deliver better and that helps us to make a difference to people's lives. Despite the challenges of this place and the fact that it is a difficult arrangement, my approach has always been one of partnership. We need to try to find ways to work better, smarter and more effectively without blockages and vetoes. The reform conversation needs to be about how we do things better, deliver better politics for here and create a better partnership arrangement.

Mr McGuigan: I thank the First Minister for her answer. Following on from that answer, First Minister, do you believe that it is time for the Justice Ministry portfolio to be selected in the normal way, just as all other Ministries are?

Mrs O'Neill: I absolutely concur with that. It would be a healthy and measured step forward if that were to be resolved and be one aspect of the reform proposals that deliver something tangible. The days of "no nationalist need apply" are long gone and are not to return. Twenty-eight years on from the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, with everything that we have achieved and the transformation that we have achieved, including the fact that I am First Minister in a place that was designed to ensure that that would never be the case, we need to ensure that every role is open to everyone in society. It is a sign that the times have changed that we cannot have any position, including Minister of Justice, locked out for nationalism. That cannot be the case, and I know that that is the view of the wider public whom we represent. I want to look at reform in the round in a meaningful way and at things that will make a difference. We will talk more about that, but I hope that we can come at the conversation with openness, fairness, honesty and a real desire to try to improve how we do business here.

Mrs O'Neill: You see, there is a sensitivity to all of this, and I am very mindful of not playing your game. [Interruption.]

I am very mindful of not playing your game. [Interruption.]

There was much suffering — [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker?

There was much suffering and trauma, and much suffering and trauma still persists as a direct result of conflict. I regret every single loss of life. The whole of my adult life has been about bedding in peace. The whole of my adult life has been about cementing the Good Friday Agreement. I look towards a brighter and better future. I try to find ways to heal the wounds of the past, not score points across the Chamber, so let us not be selective. I regret every single loss of life. You cannot say the same.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): The REACH programme, delivered by the Education Authority (EA) Youth Service, is a valued service. It uses youth work methodologies to support young people's emotional health and well-being, and it works directly with children and young people aged from six to 19. The programme is delivered on a regional basis and is available to all schools in Northern Ireland. It is funded by my Department as part of the emotional health and well-being in education framework.

My Department commissioned an independent strategic review of the framework, and that is nearing completion. Interim findings suggest that the framework remains fit for purpose and aligned with wider strategies. Once the review is complete, I will consider its recommendations and findings. It is likely that the findings will inform a new action plan to replace the original implementation plan. The future of all projects will be considered in that context, along with the wider departmental budgetary process.

Mr McAleer: I thank the Minister for his response. Minister, I have spoken to a lot of young people and families who highlighted the importance of the REACH programme in helping young people with examination stress, school refusal, anxiety and many other issues. In recent correspondence, the EA said that it had ceased the programme because of a lack of funding from the Department of Education and would re-evaluate that in the future. Might you also re-evaluate the decision to fund the REACH programme?

Mr Givan: I have not removed funding for that programme. An interim allocation was provided to the EA for the programme to continue. Obviously, the EA has taken a particular approach, but I have instructed my officials to work with it in order for the programme to continue, at least until the end of June. Hopefully, that will allow the Executive to reach a position on the final budgetary settlement, and decisions can be taken thereafter. As I said in answer to the substantive question, decisions can be based on the findings of the framework review and the most effective delivery model, considering value for money, sustainability and affordability.

Mr Robinson: Will the Minister highlight how much money is provided to the EA for REACH?

Mr Givan: The funding in 2021-22 was £899,000. That figure has remained relatively consistent, and an interim allocation of £240,000 was provided to the EA. Over the past five years, there has been a total investment of nearly £5 million, in recognition of the importance of the issues being dealt with in that area.

Mr McGlone: Will the Minister elaborate on how he intends to deliver the objectives of the REACH programme when the greatest concentration of youth services at risk of funding gaps are in Derry city, west Belfast and north Belfast, which also have the highest levels of need?

Mr Givan: I outlined that my Department commissioned a review of the framework. Decisions on how best we can provide support will be taken based on that review. Obviously, the EA will take its own operational decisions, based on the budget envelope that it receives, on how it can best meet the needs of those young people. It is important for us to recognise that it is vital to support the emotional well-being and health of young people. How best we do that needs to be kept under review. That is why we had the review, which will help to inform future decisions in that area.

Mr Givan: The Education Authority is responsible for the delivery of school transport for eligible pupils, and Translink is responsible for the timetabling of its bus services. I understand that the EA is aware of the Hazelwood Integrated College's proposed change to its school finishing time and that it met with the school, Translink and party representatives on Friday afternoon. A solution was agreed, and transport services will be adjusted to accommodate the school's new finishing time from September.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for his answer. I am glad that the Education Authority got involved last week. It is deeply frustrating that it was not until elected representatives got involved that we saw movement. I commend the vice principal, Ms Jackson, on really pushing this issue. She has been working hard to facilitate all the students. Will the Minister ensure that, in the future, Translink tries to accommodate, alongside the Education Authority, any changes that are made, especially if principals are going out of their way to facilitate what is best for Translink?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for her work in this area and for making representation on behalf of the school. It should not take MLAs to get involved for these decisions to reach the right outcome. On occasion, however, that is necessary. It speaks to the wider point that, ultimately, schools have the autonomy to determine their start and finish times. There is a process for them to do that in the minimum requirements that are set out in the relevant departmental circular, but we need to find ways to coordinate with Translink on the delivery of public services and with the EA on its school transport bus services. That, at times, can present challenges. Certainly, in my constituency, schools try to take into account how best Translink's public services can be provided for when they are timetabling. There is flexibility, but there also needs to be pragmatic timetabling by schools. I am pleased that, in this particular example, there has been a successful outcome.

Mr Martin: The Minister referenced a departmental circular in his answer. Is there guidance already in place for schools that are considering changing their start and finish times?

Mr Givan: It is laid out in a relevant circular, but that speaks to the minimum requirements when it comes to when schools should be open. Obviously, school governors can take those decisions, but cooperation with Translink and the EA on service provision is important.

That is why we have been communicating with schools, as they have been setting their new timetable for the next academic year, that there are services that the EA will provide — the likes of catering services — and that there will be some days when schools are open but catering services are not available. I appeal to schools to work with the EA to ensure that, when they are open, all services can be provided. If you have one or two schools deciding to take a different approach to how they timetable their schools, it can have an impact on their own children and young people. That is something to bear in mind when it comes to the opening hours on which schools decide.

Mr Givan: The Curriculum Taskforce Advisory Committee has played a central role in advancing the ambitious programme of curriculum reform. The committee has worked at pace and with great diligence, providing strong strategic oversight since its appointment in the autumn. Members of the committee have worked alongside the 13 subject working groups to guide the drafting of a series of curriculum frameworks. They have ensured that the new curriculum aligns with the principles that were established by the strategic review carried out by Lucy Crehan and are firmly grounded in evidence and professional expertise. The committee is completing its review of the final subject frameworks, which marks a significant milestone in the programme of reform. I expect to receive the draft overarching curriculum framework shortly and hope to launch a full public consultation before the summer.

I place on record my sincere thanks to all those involved — the task force members, subject experts and local practitioners — for their professionalism, commitment and willingness to work at pace in the best interests of children and young people across Northern Ireland.

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

Is the Minister aware that many principals, teachers and others in our education system are at the end of their tether on account of the level and speed of change that is being imposed on our system? Does he also accept that there is widespread suspicion that curriculum reform is based on ideological foundations rather than being for pedagogical reasons?

Mr Givan: It is all based on evidence-informed practice. I thank the over 70 professionals from across Northern Ireland, including principals and school leaders from every sector — Catholic maintained, controlled, integrated and Irish-medium — who have provided their expertise in the 13 subject working groups. I am delighted that that work is coming to a conclusion, which will allow a public consultation to take place.

That work has been carried out at a very high level. Its implementation — how it will roll out in our schools once the consultation is complete and we have a finalised curriculum — needs to be carefully timed . It has very much been led and owned by people who are involved in education locally. International experts have been able to assist. It is important to look at best practice internationally, including in the Republic of Ireland, which has helped to shape some of the proposals that we are taking forward.

I was very much assured — and rebuked — at a school that I visited recently. The principal commended the work on curriculum reform and then chastised me for not moving fast enough. She said, "Our children cannot afford to wait. We cannot allow a generation to continue with the current system in Northern Ireland", and she pushed me to do more and to do it more quickly.

It is appropriate for people to challenge me, but they also need to ask themselves what the basis is for their questions. It is not about ideology. I did not have an ideological agenda when I came into this role, and I did not pursue a particular approach. Instead, I was open to information and evidence, which is what informs that work. It has been led by people from various perspectives on the political spectrum. It is not beholden to any particular ideology; it is evidence-informed.

Mr Mathison: A recommendation of the curriculum review was that a 0-6 early years framework be developed. Will the Minister provide an update on when that work will be taken forward?

Mr Givan: The draft early learning and childcare strategy refers to there being a curriculum framework for the early years from nought-to-six. While recognising the importance of the curriculum from primary 1 through to year 14, which is completed at the age of 18, we see how we can also help with the curriculum for children aged nought-to-six. That is why I included the matter in the draft strategy. It has been consulted on, and we had nearly 500 responses. We are analysing those. I intend to bring forward a final early learning and childcare strategy to the Executive for their agreement and endorsement. Included in that will be work to take forward a curriculum for those aged nought-to-six.

Mr Brooks: Mr Sheehan has been flogging the dead horse that this is all about ideology for quite some time. I thought that he would have drawn back, knowing that, at the Committee, when accused of going along with Michael Gove's agenda, Lucy Crehan and her colleague told him not only that they were both left-leaning but that one of them was a signed-up member of the Labour Party.

Minister, you will have heard the same concerns from teachers as I have about some of the new things that are coming forward. What reassurance can you give teachers that the revised curriculum will support them in their practice rather than increase their workload?

Mr Givan: I reassure teachers that the revised curriculum is intended to support their practice, not to add to their workload. The reason why so much of teachers' workload is overbearing and overburdening is the failed framework in which they are operating. The only way of working our way out of the current challenges is through reform and transformation. That is what I am providing and that is what the practitioners in the education sector are delivering with the revised curriculum.

One of the weaknesses of the current curriculum is that it is too vague. It disproportionately leaves teachers to make decisions about content, sequencing and coverage. We will provide clearer expectations about what should be taught and when, and the revised framework will reduce uncertainty and duplication. That will make planning more manageable.

It is not about telling teachers how to teach, and professional judgement will remain central, but teachers will have a clearer foundation on which to build and greater clarity at a system-level that will help to reduce workload by ensuring that teachers do not reinvent the curriculum or fill gaps that have been left by a lack of specification.

As I said, implementation will be phased and supported, including through guidance and professional learning, so that the change is manageable and sustainable for schools. What I am taking forward in TransformED is a way through the current workload challenges that teachers face.

Those who advocate retaining the status quo advocate the retention of a failed system that overburdens our teachers and contributes to their workload and to burnout.

Mr Givan: The 14-week public consultation period on the draft early learning and childcare strategy ended on 24 March of this year, with 468 responses received. My officials are undertaking a comprehensive analysis of the responses received to the consultation survey and additional written responses, along with the findings from public consultation events. The findings from the consultation will be published in due course. During the consultation period, it became clear that some school-age childcare providers and representatives were concerned that their part of the sector was not as visible in the actions in the strategy as they would have liked and nor was their important role clearly represented in the strategy.

I fully recognise the valuable contribution of school-age childcare provision and have already extended the Northern Ireland childcare subsidy scheme to school-age children in September of last year, acknowledging the important role that school-age providers play in supporting working parents. As my officials complete the analysis of the responses to inform a final version of the strategy, they will continue to work closely with school-age childcare stakeholders to refine the terminology, enhance the visibility of school-age provision and ensure that the final strategy document appropriately recognises the role that school-age childcare plays in supporting parental employment and positive outcomes for children.

Ms Mulholland: I thank the Minister for his answer. As he said, there is a real fear among registered school-age childcare providers that the draft strategy simply places greater emphasis on non-health and social care trust-registered provision in school estates. Settings such as Loughgiel Community Early Years in my constituency have been in touch with the Department to express their concern about that.

Minister, how will you ensure that quality, staffing ratios, workforce qualifications and meaningful play opportunities are protected and not diluted in the new strategy, while acknowledging the work of non-statutory providers?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for her question. I spoke about the concerns that were articulated in the consultation responses. We are reflecting on and assessing those concerns. I have outlined how we will do that before I bring a final strategy to the Executive.

On non-statutory settings, by which I mean the providers, often in schools, of wrap-around services, I say to the Member that I benefited from such a wrap-around service for my children. The primary school that they attended offered a very affordable way to provide that additional care before school started and after it ended. I am concerned that we could dilute that provision, because it is often a cost-effective and convenient way for parents to have their children supported.

I appreciate that there are tensions in the sector around how to best deliver childcare, but it is best to inform parents by giving them all the evidence so that they can decide where to send their child. We ought to be careful not to be so prescriptive as to say, "You can send your child only to provider x, and you will not be supported if you use alternative means". There is value in the current non-statutory settings and in the wrap-around service that is provided in our primary schools, and I would be wary about undermining that provision.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Minister for the work that he is doing on childcare, because it is a major issue for parents. Parents in my constituency have been in touch with me. While they welcome the expansion of the Northern Ireland childcare subsidy scheme, they have seen providers' childcare costs rise. As the Minister, do you recognise the impact of that? What discussions are taking place to ensure that families see the impact of the money being delivered by your Department?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for her questions and for her comments. The affordability of childcare is a real issue for many families. That is why we introduced the childcare subsidy scheme. We stood it up at pace. We linked it to the tax-free system in the United Kingdom, because that provided the appropriate assurances and vetting to make sure that people were eligible. That has delivered significant financial savings, yet costs have continued to rise. The reality is that providers face additional costs through increased National Insurance contributions and inflation. Those costs are then often passed on. I increased the subsidy cap by 10% after the first year to recognise the inflationary pressures. We continue to increase that to reflect the inflationary pressures, so, when it comes to the subsidy, a 15% reduction is still a 15% reduction.

Costs are rising. We seek to provide the best possible support for families through the scheme. I know that more fees will be communicated to parents in the next weeks. We are now able to collect significant data. We know what is being charged, and there is a high level of variance associated with that. We need greater transparency on that and greater information for parents, both of which will help inform their decisions about where to send their child.

Mr Givan: The Education Authority has appointed an external architect-led design team to address the roofing issues at Rosetta Primary School. Additional toilet provision will also be included in the project. Extensive condition surveys have been undertaken, and the design team has provided an updated feasibility report. It is anticipated that business case development will begin this month. A timeline for the work will be determined when the business case has been completed and the preferred option identified.

In a separate project, a planning application has been submitted for a bespoke stand-alone modular toilet block and storage provision at the school. A licence agreement is in place with the neighbouring church to enable the school to use the church hall, with the Education Authority covering the cost. A gate has also been established in the boundary wall to facilitate pupils' access to the church hall. Those measures will help mitigate the impact of the ongoing closure of the assembly hall on the pupils' education. The Education Authority continues to liaise closely with the school, and I can confirm that another meeting is scheduled for 7 May.

This situation is, regrettably, another example of the consequences of underinvestment in the education estate. We have over 1,100 schools, many of which are aged buildings and in extremely poor condition. Years of limited budgets and underinvestment have forced the Department and the EA to focus on the most basic priority of keeping schools open and children safe. I remain committed to improving the condition of the schools estate, and I will continue to call for urgent cross-party support to secure the investment that is needed to ensure that every child in Northern Ireland is educated in a safe, modern and inclusive environment.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Minister, for that update. It seems that work is under way to address the issue, but, as you have outlined, it has been two years since the assembly hall was usable for pupils, and the school has been calling for the investment for nine years. I pay tribute to Mr McGarrigle, the incoming principal, for his work in highlighting the concerns.

Minister, can you ensure that funding will be available for all the works that are required to bring the school up to its design purpose?

Mr Givan: Where we have prioritised health and safety, that is where the first call of funding has gone. We need to expedite all the processes: planning, the business case, feasibility and design. All that needs to get to the point where finance is the requirement. We are not at that stage. Let us — I have engaged on this and have encouraged the EA — expedite all the work that we are doing, because I want to get to a place where Members in the Assembly are able to say, "This is just subject to finance. We just need to get the funding". That allows me to look at the resources in my Department or to seek external support for that from the Department of Finance. Let us move through the process as efficiently as we can and then to the place where it is subject to finance. The fact that education has been underfunded and that our schools estate has a huge maintenance backlog has been well articulated by me in the Assembly. We need to see prioritisation afforded to Education when it comes to its allocation of the Budget.

Mr O'Toole: As Paula Bradshaw said, parents, pupils, the school community and teachers have not been able to use the hall at Rosetta for years. I live in the area, and I know how distressing and frustrating that is for the school community. You talked about the business case and the processes that are being worked through with the EA. Mr McGarrigle, the principal, has done a huge amount of work, but there has been frustration that they have had to chase and chivvy the EA. You talk about getting to a place where the final question is finance: can you and the EA give a commitment that, when you get to that stage, the finance will be found to reopen the Rosetta school hall and do the works necessary so that the school community can use the whole building?

Mr Givan: I visited the school at the Speaker's request. I have seen at first hand the challenges that it faces. I would love to be in a position to say that it is unique: unfortunately, it is not unique. There are a series of challenges reflected in many schools across the Province, and that is why I have made the case for funding to be provided. Let us get to the point where it is subject to funding, and then it becomes a different area where we need to seek the resource. Of course I want Rosetta Primary School to be given the funding to allow the works to take place to restore the facilities that it requires.

Mr Kingston: Can the Minister confirm the capital budget position for his Department for 2026-27?

Mr Givan: Obviously, a Budget has not been agreed. Indeed, version one of the Sinn Féin Budget was wholly inadequate for Education, and version two of the Sinn Féin Budget is wholly inadequate for Education, and that is why it will not get my support. Significant work needs to be carried out to get to a point where agreement can be reached. Ultimately, once a decision is taken on the Budget, that is the envelope of funding that I am left with. Members on the Benches opposite chastise me for not being able to invest in schools, and yet it is they who hold the purse strings. We will not be in a position to sign off on the Budget until it properly reflects the priority that Education ought to be afforded. When we get to that stage, hopefully we can make progress and invest in our school estate, because that is what we need to achieve.

Mr Givan: Schools in Northern Ireland have a statutory duty to consider making provision for wider community use of their premises when they are not otherwise required for education purposes. My Department has published a community use of schools guidance toolkit to share good practice and provide guidance on the key issues that schools may wish to consider when deciding whether and how to open their premises for community use. My officials are working with their counterparts in the Education Authority to update the guidance.

Mr Harvey: I thank the Minister for his response. He will be aware that the local school is central to many rural communities, and it is often the only community facility. What more can practically be done by the EA and/or your Department to support school principals to overcome the practical hurdles involved in opening their facilities for external use?

Mr Givan: Nearly 80% of schools provide community use, and it is something that is available to communities. There is a toolkit for schools, which is currently under review and will hopefully be finalised shortly, and it will enable the processes to be more seamless. However, decisions on whether school premises are made available for community use rest with each school's board of governors or the principal. I encourage them to make provision for community use, but it requires that certain criteria be met. However, we ought to make sure that we ameliorate any existing barriers and make sure that our school buildings are widely usable for the whole community, because they are an important asset, and I very much encourage making good use of them.

Mr Givan: The EA is responsible for managing preschool admissions processes and ensuring that sufficient places are available to accommodate target-age children. In doing so, the EA takes account of all provision across statutory and non-statutory settings. My Department plays no role in that process. The admissions process is still ongoing, but already 98·8% of children have been offered a place in a setting of their parents' preference, and 92·4% have been offered their first-preference setting. I appreciate that settings are naturally keen to attract as many funded places as possible, especially given the continuing decline in the birth rate, which is placing all settings under pressure, and that must be managed fairly by the EA.

The pupil allocation number (PAN) review carried out by the EA at my request last year included a range of measures to improve the process in both the short and longer term, many of which have already been implemented. Details of that are available on the EA website. I believe that there may be scope to further improve the manner in which the EA takes account of parents' preferences while still balancing its relevant statutory duties. The PAN review includes an action to consider alternative PAN allocation models that will enable a range of options to be fully explored with stakeholders and thoroughly tested to ensure effectiveness before any changes are made.

My officials are supporting the EA in carrying out initial modelling to inform workshops to discuss alternative allocation models. That work is at an early stage, but it is intended that the first workshop will be held before the end of this academic year.

Mr Speaker: We move to topical questions.

Mr Givan: I will speak to that issue in more detail tomorrow, when I make a ministerial statement on teacher workload. In the course of reaching a settlement on teachers' pay, one of the issues that was brought to the fore was workload. I proposed that an independent body look at that. I commissioned Paul Sweeney, a former permanent secretary in the Department, to chair the body, which had school leader and trade union movement representation. As part of its work, the body considered a lot of the information that the Member has referred to. The report, which has been published and is in the public domain, contains 27 recommendations. I will respond to that formally, tomorrow, and outline how we will take forward the recommendations.

In order for us to deliver the transformation that the teaching profession requires, we need to be able to work our way through that process. I deeply value the contribution that teachers make to education. We need to ensure that they are not unnecessarily burdened with responsibilities but are able to focus on what they came into the profession to do: to teach. That is what I intend to deliver.

Ms Hunter: Thank you, Minister. Teachers with whom I have spoken recently also said that they feel weighed down and stressed by the number of upcoming changes in education, such as TransformED, SEN reform and many more. This week, some schools are closed to facilitate that training, which leaves parents having to find childcare. Last week, in a letter, the Children's Law Centre and many others voiced their concern about the pace with which those changes are taking place. Minister, are you comfortable and, most importantly, confident given the level of disruption that is ongoing in our education system?

Mr Givan: As things stand, the implementation of a lot of the changes has not hit at school level, because it is being taken forward at a very high strategic level. The implementation at school level needs to be carefully managed. That is why I communicated with school leaders and provided them with that assurance. Our education system is facing challenges. I do not deny that there are significant challenges and pressures on our teaching profession, but they are a consequence of the current frameworks in which the profession has to operate. We can move beyond those challenges only by changing our education system. That change is being led by practitioners and professionals, so I am confident that, as we work through the process, we will see the positive changes that the Member seeks, and which, I know, many in the teaching profession want to see . That requires commitment to work through that change. I am determined to deliver that not just for the teaching profession but, ultimately, for the children and young people. We cannot continue with the status quo. It is failing a number of our children, particularly children from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. If we believe in equality, let us get behind the transformation and close the attainment gap. That, with the right support for our teaching profession, will deliver more for the working-class people of the Province than any other measures that we can take. I am delivering on that. Let us keep at it.

Mr Givan: We often revert to our default positions on this issue if we do not want to engage on the wider reform of our education system. As I have said before, there is no consensus on how to deal with academic selection. We have debated it in motions, and we have divided the House on it, but there is not a universal approach to how we are going to deal with it. That is a challenge for all of us. Is this where we would be if we had a clean slate? I think that the answer is no. If we were to start with a blank canvas, I do not think that we would have academic selection in Northern Ireland. I think that we would be able to find a better way, but we have to deal with the systems that we have, and, until there is a different approach that people can argue is the better way to do it, we have to work with the current system while seeking to make improvements. My changes will benefit every single child in every single school, regardless of whether there is academic selection.

Miss Hargey: I think that the Minister's answer to my question is no. He mentioned trying to impact on working-class children, and I agree. I still live in a working-class community and can see the damage. The reviewer whom the Minister selected to carry out the curriculum review, Lucy Crehan, said at a recent meeting of the Education Committee that academic selection distorts the curriculum in primary schools. Taking on board what the reviewer said, what changes will the Minister make to look at that? The situation is damaging, particularly to working-class children.

Mr Givan: I am glad that Sinn Féin is now quoting and supporting comments from the reviewer of education. I trust that Sinn Féin will give the same weight to every other aspect of the independent report that Lucy carried out.

The Member is right to raise the point about distortion of what children learn in school being based on the test that they have to sit. I have often referred to "teaching to the test". That is why our reform of qualifications needs to align with the curriculum. Otherwise, we will teach only according to what you get a GCSE, A level or vocational qualification in. My reform is not just about the curriculum; it is also about qualifications. There is a valid question about the Schools' Entrance Assessment Group (SEAG) transfer test, and those who operate the SEAG test need to see how it reflects the curriculum that will be required to be taught from P1 right through to P7. That test should align with the curriculum that is being taught in our schools. Notwithstanding whether one supports academic selection, the test should very much align with what is being taught in the class and should not distort the curriculum. The Member raises a valid point that should be considered.

Mr Givan: We reviewed the process last year, and, whilst it is no comfort to parents who did not get their first-preference choice this year, 92·5% is an improvement on last year in accommodating first-preference choices across those settings. In my view, there is always room for improvement. There is a very transparent process that the Education Authority (EA) follows to ensure the efficient use of taxpayers' money in provision but also that there is maintenance of provision in certain areas. Whilst I totally understand that some settings want to increase their number, if that number is increased to the detriment of an often small rural setting, you will not have any provision for that local community. There is an element whereby the EA is seeking to balance the competing requirements that it has to navigate. There will be a further review of the process this year and workshops to engage with the sector. Where we can refine the process and facilitate higher levels of parental choice, we should seek to do so.

Mr Stewart: I thank the Minister for that comprehensive answer. Minister, will lessons be learned by officials who are advising parents? Parents who received no offers for their first preference might, because it is the same council area, be offered a place in Ballymena when that family lives in Carrickfergus. Can any offers that are made be truly local and not 45 or 50 minutes away? That is not much for those parents to ask.

Mr Givan: There are various stages in that engagement, and we have had stage 1. The EA is working through situations in which offers were not made to parents or where parents had not expressed a second preference. Often, there will be those who do not put down a second preference because they think, "If I do not get my first preference —". The EA will seek to accommodate that. I encourage parents, during the process, to put down various preferences and express those so that they can be taken forward as part of that process. However, ultimately, if parents choose to make only one choice, that can, at times, be difficult for the EA to accommodate.

I want to see improvement in the process. There has been improvement, but it is still not without challenges, and that speaks to a wider challenge for all of us in our society, namely a declining birth rate. A consequence of a declining birth rate in our society is that settings are struggling to fill their numbers. That impacts not only on nursery settings but on primary and post-primary schools. Often, people then have to compete in a very challenging area, where there are fewer people to fill the existing places. That is a real challenge for all of us in delivering public services.

Mr Givan: Decisions were taken on the regional aspect of that issue, and the position has been outlined that the schemes are to go ahead. Funding is not an issue, nor was it ever an issue. The Department of Health has said that the appropriate nursing care will be made available. The Education Authority (EA) has taken that forward with all the individual schools that are involved. Ultimately, the ability to deliver the schemes will be a decision at school level, but there is no inhibitor at a departmental level, in either the Department of Education or the Department of Health, in wanting summer school provision to take place. I accept and acknowledge that individual schools might be influenced to an extent when it comes to deciding whether summer schemes will go ahead in that particular setting.

Mr Honeyford: I thank the Minister. Beyond the requirement for nursing provision that he mentioned in relation to the Department of Health, is he confident that enough adequately trained staff are available for the schemes to proceed?

Mr Givan: I am confident that the overwhelming majority of the schemes will be able to take place, albeit the planning for them has happened very late in the year. I responded to that issue in the Chamber when we debated a motion on it. Different staff will deliver the schemes. A lot of them are different staff from those who are there during term time. Therefore, there is a need to provide the appropriate training. The enhanced medical complexity of some pupils meant that the issue crystallised this year. That issue has been overcome, because the Department of Health has made available nursing provision. We do not want to see a repetition of those issues, but long-term planning is required to ensure that there is the appropriate training, capacity and resourcing when it comes to staff to enable the summer schemes to continue not only this summer but in future years, as, I think, we all want to see.

Mr Givan: The legislation that I seek to introduce is central to the Department's work to ensure that children and young people receive the education that they deserve. My Bill to require young people to participate in education or training for an additional two years beyond the compulsory school age has been fully drafted and is ready for introduction to the Assembly, subject to Executive agreement.

The school inspections Bill has been drafted and is awaiting Executive approval. That Bill strengthens the inspection framework. It includes provisions to improve cooperation with inspections and remove the current exemption from inspection for religious education. That Bill has been able to deal with some issues that were raised by Executive colleagues effectively, and those issues are no longer there. It includes a response to the UK Supreme Court's judgement on religious education. The Bill has been drafted and is sitting with colleagues to take forward.

Finally, the Executive have agreed that primary legislation will be brought forward to establish a new organisation to support controlled schools. Such a Bill is now included in the Executive's legislative programme, and I intend to bring forward a draft in the coming months.

Mr Martin: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, unless I am mistaken, you mentioned three pieces of legislation, one of which is moving forward. I refer to the first two Bills that you mentioned. When did you first raise those issues at the Executive?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for that question. It is notable that Sinn Féin talked about "blockages". If Sinn Féin wants reform, it can start with itself. It can start by removing the blockade on my legislation, some of which has sat for months with the Executive. It can start by removing the veto that it is exercising by blocking my legislation from appearing on the agenda. If Sinn Féin is serious about reform and ending the blockade, let it start with itself, because it is Sinn Féin that is blocking the work of the Executive on a number of issues, not least in Education.

Overcoming some of the most minor issues with the Bills that I have brought to the Executive has taken an unreasonably long time. Nine months after I announced the SEN capital programme, Sinn Féin allowed it on to the agenda for discussion — not for agreement, but for discussion — at the Executive. It is therefore not serious about reform, because all that it is doing is blocking a high number of education-related Bills and proposals that would benefit the children of Northern Ireland.

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

Mr Speaker: I call the Minister to conclude his remarks.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I will start from where I left off.

The Department undertook a 10-week public consultation on the draft just transition commission regulations. That consultation was supported by targeted engagement events with groups that are required by the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 to be represented on the just transition commission. The response was overwhelmingly positive, with strong support for the establishment of the commission and for the proposed approach to its operation.

Through the consultation, we heard from the following: trade unions; the agriculture and environment sectors; rural communities; young people, including young farmers; people with a disability; older people's representatives; consumer groups; regulators; councils; academics; and the wider public. I thank all who engaged so positively with my Department. Their input helped shape the regulations before the Assembly today.

Respondents strongly supported the establishment of the commission but wanted to see membership broadened in order for it to be more inclusive. There was strong support for representation from the energy and transport sectors, reflecting their importance to achieving decarbonisation. The green finance sector, although not an emissions sector in itself, was considered to be a key support and an enabling sector. Alongside strong views on biodiversity and the rural economy, there was also clear support for including the built environment sector.

Given the different issues facing rural communities and the different impacts on them, many respondents also proposed that there should be a dedicated rural representative on the commission, distinct from and in addition to a representative of the agriculture sector as already mandated by the Act. I have listened to stakeholders and expanded the membership of the commission to include those specific sectors and groups.

There was also a high level of support from respondents for some sectors, owing to their size and diversity, benefiting from having more than one representative on the commission. That view came across strongly from the environment and agriculture sectors. As a result, the draft regulations provide for mandated representation across 12 sectors, with 16 members, including a chair, while also allowing flexibility for future expansion, up to a maximum of 20 members. That strikes a balance between breadth of experience and effective governance.

To ensure that the commission remains agile, the draft regulations also allow for the establishment of ad hoc committees and work groups to support it. That will enable wider expertise to be brought in when required without making the commission unwieldy. The commission is also empowered to request information from experts and public bodies, including local authorities and those that represent consumers.

My Department has sought to establish best practice to ensure that the approach to a just transition and any lessons that can be learned from other regions in the UK and Ireland are taken into account and used to inform the draft regulations. To that effect, my Department has engaged closely with counterparts in Scotland and Ireland, where just transition commissions have already been established, and has reviewed just transition policy in other countries. National and international best practice have been factored into the draft regulations to determine how commission members will be recruited and how the body will operate once established.

As is required under section 56(2) of the 2022 Act, my Department sought advice from the UK Climate Change Committee (CCC) on the proposals to make the regulations. The CCC published its advice on 2 June 2025, welcoming the establishment of the commission and noting the important role that it will play. The CCC recognises that the commission will enable strong collaboration between government and industry, enable meaningful engagement with workers and local communities and assist Departments in delivering net zero in a way that is fully aligned with the just transition principle. The CCC also emphasised the importance of the commission in being able to provide formal advice and recommendations to government. The draft regulations explicitly provide for that role.

The commission is required to publish and lay its reports before the Assembly, thus ensuring full transparency and accountability. In addition, the CCC recommended that the commission's work should focus on those sectors that are most relevant to achieving decarbonisation in a fair and just way, and that its core membership should be clearly defined.

The regulations respond positively and directly to that advice. They strike a careful balance between broad, inclusive representation across key sectors and the flexibility that is needed for the commission to operate effectively, including provision for membership of up to 20 individuals. In line with the requirements of the 2022 Act, I laid a written ministerial statement before the Assembly, at the same time as I laid the draft regulations, to provide Members with further detail on the approach that has been taken and on how the CCC's advice has been reflected.

Costs have been carefully controlled. The commission will be funded by my Department at an estimated cost of around £150,000 a year to deliver its statutory duties, supported by a small secretariat. The regulatory impact assessment, along with equality screening, a full child rights impact assessment and a rural needs impact assessment all identified positive impacts.

A just transition is not simply a procedural requirement but is a social, economic and generational responsibility. The regulations put in place the structure that is needed to ensure fairness, accountability and expert oversight as we decarbonise our economy. I look forward to Members' contributions, and I encourage the Assembly to support these important regulations so that the public appointments process can begin and this important commission can become operational.

Mr Butler (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I thank the Minister for moving the motion and providing some detail. On 12 February, the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs noted the SL 1 for the draft regulations and agreed to issue a call for views, which closed on 26 February. A total of eight responses were received, as well as an additional written response.

By way of background, the Committee has been particularly interested in scrutinising progress towards the establishment of a just transition commission, with the aim of ensuring that, during the transition to a net zero society, no one is left behind or disproportionately affected.

On 7 November 2024, the Committee first received a written paper on the steps that were being taken to establish the commission. The Committee was provided with an illustrative draft of the regulations, but it was not until 23 May 2025 that we considered a paper on the outcome of DAERA's consultation on the draft regulations. On 12 March 2026, we held an evidence session with officials and heard that DAERA intended to make a draft statutory rule (SR) to deliver on the requirements of section 37 of the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 to establish a just transition commission for Northern Ireland. The 2022 Act requires that all Northern Ireland Departments must have regard to the just transition principle when developing and delivering emission reduction policies included in sectoral plans and climate action plans. The Committee heard that the SR would be laid before the Assembly under the draft affirmative procedure.

Officials highlighted that the just transition objectives included supporting and growing jobs that are climate resilient and environmentally and socially sustainable, contributing to a resource-efficient and sustainable economy and ensuring that the needs of the present are met without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The Committee was advised that the just transition aims to promote fairness during the transition from high emissions to a low emission economy and to ensure that no workers, communities, sectors, vulnerable groups or regions are left behind as our economy is decarbonised.

The Committee also noted that the draft regulations provide that the commission will be an independent advisory non-departmental public body, comprising 16 members, including a chairperson, covering 12 sectors to ensure broad sectoral representation. The Committee was pleased to note that the commission will include two members from the environmental sector and three members from the agricultural sector and that, following the consultation, the Department included a recommendation for a separate representative of the rural community. That latter addition was welcomed as, during the mandate, the Committee has heard from a range of rural networks and support groups who told us, time and again, that the needs of rural communities must be carefully considered in a just transition and, indeed, in any sectoral plan.

The Committee was pleased to hear that officials had engaged with counterparts in other just transition commissions, as well as the sponsoring Departments in Scotland and the Republic of Ireland, in order to learn from their experience. Members expressed concerns that the commission should reflect the specific challenges in Northern Ireland, particularly those faced in our rural communities. Officials responded that the commission will be focused not only on Northern Ireland as a whole but on a specific regional basis in order to face up to the challenges in urban and rural areas. The Committee was pleased to note that engagement with all Departments had demonstrated strong support for the commission, recognising that the delivery of the just transition is dependent on effective inter-departmental cooperation and collaboration.

Having agreed on 12 March to support the draft regulations, we were content on 16 April, at our first meeting after recess, to note the correspondence from the Department regarding the date of this debate and saying that there had been no changes to policy content since the Committee agreed to support the draft regulations. In conclusion, the Committee agreed to recommend that the draft Climate Change (Just Transition Commission) Regulations (NI) 2026 be approved by the Assembly.

I will make some comments as the Ulster Unionist AERA spokesperson. It is key that, at its heart, this conversation should not just be about carbon targets on a page. Rather, it must be about people and about how we can create opportunity for prosperity and promote equitable access to it. It must be about whether the transition that we are embarking on delivers equality, prosperity and balance across every part of Northern Ireland or whether it deepens the divide and imposes burdens to achieve targets that we are already, sadly, struggling to achieve. We have to look at the evidence. The evidence is clear: if the transition is not fair and not deliverable, we will not succeed. The Climate Change Act set ambitious goals, but ambition alone is not a strategy, and it is certainly no guarantee of justice. Right now, too many people are already carrying heavy burdens. Families face fuel poverty, rural communities feel left behind, small businesses are under pressure and key sectors such as agri-food and farming families are staring into uncertainty over a range of pressures.

The Ulster Unionist Party cannot and will not break the backs of our people in pursuit of targets that feel unachievable, are unaffordable or are unfair in delivery. That would not be a just transition; it would be a policy failure waiting to happen. A truly just transition must begin with a different premise, which is that climate action and societal progress go hand in hand. It must be about lifting people up, not about weighing them down. That means tackling inequality head-on, not as an afterthought but as a core objective. It means recognising that the costs and benefits of change are not evenly shared, and then acting accordingly. We need to get it right first time. If the costs fall on those least able to pay, public support will also disappear. We are already seeing the warning signs of that, albeit when global catastrophes happen, as we are seeing in the Strait of Hormuz. People support renewable energy and climate action, but they do not support policies that make their lives harder or, indeed, more expensive. The question for the commission, therefore, will be simple: will it design a transition that works for people or one that happens to them?

If we get this right, there is enormous opportunity. The legislation points the way. It says that we will create good, well-paid jobs; that we will support industries in transition; that we will invest in infrastructure; and that we will build a more resourceful and efficient economy. We must go further, however. We must prioritise growing indigenous industries rather than outsourcing our future. We must ensure that investment flows into our local economies, rural and urban alike. We must support farmers, manufacturers and small businesses to adapt, innovate and thrive. This is not just an environmental transition; it is the potential for an economic transformation. If we do it properly, we can rebalance our economy, strengthen communities and create opportunity for our next generation, but that will not happen by accident. It will require leadership at every level. It will require coordination across Departments. Crucially, it will require genuine partnership with our communities. The message coming through strongly today is that people want to be part of the solution, but they also want to have a say. They want to see real, tangible benefits where they live. They want policies shaped with them, not imposed on them. That means embracing a more democratic approach that involves our citizens; listens to our communities, particularly our rural communities; recognises that innovation already happens at grassroots level; and builds on that success. We have seen international examples of where communities directly benefit from renewable energy and where local people see lower costs, better services and real community ownership. That is a model that we should scale. When people see the benefit, they will support the change, but when they do not, they will resist it.

We also need honesty about the scale of the challenge. There is already a gap between our targets and our current policy delivery. Closing that gap will require significant action across every sector. That ambition must also come with absolute realism.