Official Report: Tuesday 28 April 2026

Mr Speaker: I have been notified that Colin McGrath is unwell and will therefore not be in the Chamber to open the Adjournment debate. I understand that the Member will seek to get the debate rescheduled by the Business Committee.

Mr Kelly: It gives me great pleasure to congratulate two sports teams in my constituency. First, I congratulate Crumlin Star on yet another outstanding victory. It defeated Rathfriland Rangers 3-1, with goals from Dee Fearon, Stephen Smyth and James Doyle securing the club's win on the night. I imagine that the moment is especially significant for Paul Trainor, given that, after a long and successful stint as manager, this is his final season. I also wish Joe McNeill every success as he progresses to being the first-team manager next season, as well as Paul Prigent, who will take on the role of assistant manager. I look forward to congratulating them again as they continue to bring titles back to North Belfast.

Secondly, I recognise the fantastic achievement of Greencastle Rovers in securing a brilliant victory over Clough Rangers to win the Junior Shield, with goals from Jordy O'Kane, Fra Taplin and Mark Tutin. It is the club's second Junior Shield title since 2023, and there is a chance to add more silverware to the cabinet, with the league title and the Canada Cup still within reach.

Both clubs are more than just teams: they are at the heart of their communities. We see how they bring people together and give us a sense of pride in where we come from. I offer a final congratulations to all those involved with the clubs: the players, the coaches, the families, the supporters and the youth teams that are coming through. Their hard work and commitment do not go unnoticed, and their success is a credit to North Belfast.

Mr Brett: Another week and we have another front-page story that highlights failures at the Department for the Economy. Last week, the business community across Northern Ireland unprecedentedly united in opposition to the employment rights Bill that the Minister proposes to introduce. This week, it is an unprecedented intervention by our universities.

At a Confederation of British Industry (CBI) event on Friday hosted at Queen's University and attended by business leaders and the Minister for the Economy, the university issued an unprecedented warning that funding failures implemented by Minister Archibald will cost 2,700 student places at the institution. That warning came in the wake of last week's deeply worrying news that 250 jobs will be lost at Ulster University as a result of the same policies by the Minister.

Taken together, those developments paint a deeply concerning picture of our higher education sector and the stewardship of that Department by Sinn Féin. One week, the business community is warning about policies that threaten growth, and, the next week, our universities are talking about cuts that will threaten skills, opportunities and our future workforce. The university made it clear that, in practice, that means fewer engineers, nurses and teachers, less research capability and fewer students from Northern Ireland being able to study at home. That is not simply a challenge for higher education but a direct attack on the Northern Ireland economy.

The universities are central to innovation, to attracting investment and to equipping the next generation with the skills that our economy needs. Yet, instead of leadership, we see drift, and, instead of solutions, we hear the same old mantra from Sinn Féin: "Blame the Brits". Instead of backing growth, it is presiding over warnings from employers one week and our institutions this week. Northern Ireland deserves better than that. Our students, our universities and, ultimately, our economy deserve better than that.

The record of the Sinn Féin Ministers in charge of the Department for the Economy has been nothing short of a shambles. I hope that the people of Northern Ireland will see it for what it is: fantasy economics presided over by a party that is not fit to hold that office.

Mr Donnelly: I rise to talk about ambulance response times in rural areas. Recent figures have confirmed that just one in seven category 1 calls in rural areas are responded to by the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service (NIAS) within the targeted response time of eight minutes. At first glance, eight minutes may not sound like much, but, in reality, it can be the difference between life and death. Imagine if you or someone you love goes into cardiac arrest or begins to choke or is involved in a serious incident and is bleeding heavily. Suddenly, eight minutes is not just a target on paper. It is not a statistic, nor is it a performance indicator.

Category 1 calls are the most urgent emergencies. They are described by NIAS as "immediately life-threatening". Those are moments when every minute lost can worsen outcomes and reduce the chance of survival. In urban areas, that target is missed in more than half of category 1 calls: 52% are missed. That, in itself, is unacceptable. In rural communities, there is an 85% chance that the eight-minute target will not be met for the most serious, urgent and life-threatening emergencies. We already know that people living in rural areas are often disadvantaged by poor transport infrastructure, longer travel times and wider health inequalities. That means that timely access to emergency care is absolutely essential. When only one in seven of those calls is being reached within the target, rural communities are not just being let down; they are being disregarded.

I want to be clear: this is an issue for the Department of Health and the Minister. No blame should be directed at the dedicated and hard-working staff of the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service, who work under immense pressure and are not the cause of the crisis. They are the victims of pressures and inefficiencies in the wider health system. This is not just about ambulances but about delays in handing patients over to emergency departments, poor hospital flow and the lack of capacity in our communities. It is a perfect example of what happens when pressures upstream are ignored for too long. When patients cannot move through hospitals, ambulances cannot get back on the road. When ambulances cannot get back on the road, response times worsen. When response times worsen for category 1 calls, the consequences can be catastrophic. We are talking about people's lives.

When we discuss excess deaths in A&E, winter pressures, ambulance handover delays and category 1 targets, those are not separate conversations; they are part of the same patient safety crisis. Every delay has a consequence, and every missed target has a human cost. When only one in seven rural category 1 calls is being reached on time, the Department must treat that with the urgency that the risk to people's lives demands.

Mr Beattie: Yesterday, the Chair of the Justice Committee, Paul Frew, tabled an important motion to extend the Committee Stage of the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill to 27 November. I am working hand-in-hand with Paul in that regard.

One of the elements of the Sentencing Bill is the increase in the sentence from 14 years to 20 years for drink- and drug-driving and dangerous driving, which I support. It happens that, yesterday, I met Peter Dolan to talk about the awful death of his son Enda Dolan. There is no party here that has not met Peter and heard his story about Enda. We are united in supporting him. He is absolutely clear that he supports raising the sentence from 14 years to 20 years for drug- and drink-driving and dangerous driving. We all support it.

There is a fundamental problem, however. Enda's story is tragic and brutal — I will not go into it now — but the person who perpetrated that crime got seven years: 3·5 behind bars and another 3·5 on licence. The punishment for that crime was really 3·5 years. That was seen as unduly lenient and was extended to 4·5 years, meaning a nine-year sentence, which is nowhere near the 14 years that a judge can give as a maximum. We are talking about extending the sentence from 14 years to 20 years, but that makes absolutely no sense, because judges do not use the powers that they have to go to the maximum. That is why I have continued to argue for a sentencing council for Northern Ireland in line with what exists in England, Wales, Scotland and the Republic of Ireland. I make no apology for doing so. A sentencing council is a council that will hold the judiciary to account to make sure that judges use the maximum sentence. We have never seen the maximum 14-year sentence used for drug- or drink-driving — never. A sentencing council can do that, however. I have also raised the case countless times, and will again, that our judges, who do a really good job and have a difficult job to do — I am not critical of them — need personal, professional and continuous development that they have to attend. At the moment, they simply do not attend any personal and professional development. It should be compulsory.

We need to move forward and create a sentencing regime that not only has rehabilitation at its heart but has deterrence and punishment and protects the people of Northern Ireland, but, until we put things in place such as a sentencing council and training for our judiciary, we will never achieve that. If we are going to meet what Enda's father wants us to meet, we need to move on that through the Sentencing Bill.

Mr McNulty: On Saturday morning, in Cullyhanna in south Armagh, multiple reports from members of the public were made to the police about a man who was walking around covered in blood and armed with a machete. The alarming, frightening and dangerous scene had the potential to result not only in harm but even in fatalities. However, that was avoided when the police acted with appropriate urgency and arrived at the scene within minutes. Incredibly, with the courageous help of two community members, the police were able to seize the weapon and restrain the man.

The incident demonstrated how the police and the community can work together to keep people safe. I recognise the bravery of the responding police officers in their rapid action to protect the community as well as the fast-acting and courageously selfless bravery of the individuals who stepped in to help diffuse the dangerous situation. I trust that everyone involved in the incident will get the help and support that they need.

Mrs Dillon: I acknowledge the work and dedication of the community first responders in Coalisland in my constituency. I also acknowledge the trauma that they have to face when they go into a home where, first of all, they do not know what they are going into. They have to deal with families who are in an extremely difficult situation, and their work is outstanding. I call on all communities to support their first responders and to be aware of what they do and when they can be called on.

I particularly acknowledge the first responders and the Air Ambulance in relation to an incident that happened two weeks ago today in Coalisland, when a young boy, Hugh John Campbell, who was only 16 years old, died.

Had it not been for the first responders, the family would have been left on their own to deal with what was happening in their home, where that young boy was dying. We would not be able to survive in our communities without first responders or the Air Ambulance. While they could not save Hugh John's life, their response was absolutely vital. The family knew that, no matter what, everything that could have been done was done. The people who could have saved his life, had that been possible, were there.

I also acknowledge the support that was given to the family by the school community of St Joseph's College; the local football club, Coalisland Fianna; Brocagh camogie club; and all those clubs and people across our community. I thank the Tyrone county board for allowing the money that was collected at the gate of the Jim Devlin cup last week to be given to the Air Ambulance. That shows how a community can come together to support that family and the organisations that supported them. I encourage everybody who knows what community first responders do in their areas, as we as MLAs do, to ensure that our communities are aware of them, know what they do and know how to contact them, so that they are able to respond in times of crisis. Families really rely on them. As I said, that family was reassured that, whilst Hugh John's life could not be saved, everything that could have been done was done.

Mrs Erskine: The A5 is "an absolute priority" for Sinn Féin, and the First Minister has said:

That was her line on Saturday. On 1 July 2025, the First Minister said in the Chamber:

Well, there is a massive stone sitting unturned on the A5. We are not talking about stones that are poured onto landowners' land for preparation works; it is the rock of net zero climate change targets that Sinn Féin, the Alliance Party and the SDLP are so beholden to that they cannot take the speck out of their eye and realise that that stone is holding back infrastructure projects. I can only conclude that those fine words are nothing but sound bites.

Friday was another day, with another speech and another sound bite from the Infrastructure Minister. There is still no plan to deliver. As Liz Kimmins, Michelle O'Neill and Mary Lou McDonald took to the stage at Sinn Féin's party conference in Belfast, they all had the chance to outline real action on our crumbling roads and what they will do to solve the problem with our major roads project; instead, we got deflection, excuses and a great reel of blame. Blame the Brits: check. Repeat the line that the A5 must be built: check. Make a vague promise about regional balance for rural roads: check. Of course, there was no explanation of how major road projects will actually go ahead, especially when climate change targets are not being fixed to allow progress. Addressing regional balance is a lovely little line that might sound reassuring, but it is so disconnected from reality. I have not forgotten that £6·6 million for the A4 Enniskillen bypass was handed back to the Minister's colleague, Finance Minister John O'Dowd. Some £8 million has been spent on that project to date, not to mention the more than £150 million that has been spent on the A5 without a single bit of tarmac laid.

It is a privilege for me to be elected to this place, and it is incumbent on me to stand up and shout for Fermanagh and South Tyrone. I will not tire of doing so, but it is time for those who have the power to do so to overturn the stones —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mrs Erskine: — that are holding up major road projects. It is hard to escape —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mrs Erskine: — the conclusion that Sinn Féin —

Mr Speaker: I call Claire Sugden.

Mrs Erskine: — is not doing delivery.

Ms Sugden: I wish to highlight ongoing concerns around antisocial behaviour in Coleraine, Limavady and, indeed, the wider Causeway area. It is having an impact on people's sense of safety in their communities, particularly for women and girls. In recent months, I have been contacted by residents dealing with persistent disruption, including late-night parties, suspected drug use and, in some cases, violence. Those are not sporadic incidents; they are happening repeatedly over long periods and are having a real impact on people's ability to feel safe and to feel settled in their own homes.

For many women and girls, that impact can feel different. Antisocial behaviour is not always just experienced as disruption; it is intimidation and threats. Recent reports in Coleraine and Limavady of women being followed, alongside other incidents, have understandably heightened that concern. For many women, situations such as that are not viewed in isolation. They are part of a wider reality where everyday activities such as walking home, passing through a public space or being out after dark require a heightened sense of awareness. That is the reality of being a woman.

There is also a growing frustration about how those situations are being addressed. People feel that, despite reporting issues, there are delays or limits to what can be done. That creates a sense that the system is not working as it should and that concerns are not being resolved. That context matters because, if we are serious about ending violence against women and girls, we cannot separate that ambition from the environments that people move through every day. The areas where antisocial behaviour persists are often the areas where people feel least safe. They are areas with poor lighting, neglected or overlooked spaces and a lack of visible presence or deterrent. Those are not minor issues; they shape behaviour, confidence and how people experience their communities.

There are practical steps that we can take. We can improve our street lighting; we can make more effective use of CCTV; we can have better maintenance of public services so that areas feel visible and cared for; and we can have a more consistent presence in areas where concerns are raised repeatedly. There is also a need for a more coordinated approach across the agencies and for earlier intervention where problems are persistent and are clearly impacting on residents.

Of course, it is important to recognise that some individuals involved in antisocial behaviour may be dealing with their own complex issues, including mental health challenges or addiction, and support must be part of that response. However, that cannot come at the expense of those who are living with ongoing disruption and feeling unsafe in their homes. It is about balance and about ensuring that communities are protected, concerns are taken seriously and people feel confident that action will be taken when issues are raised.

Mr Wilson: I express my serious concerns about the Department of Justice's proposed changes to firearms licensing fees and the banded system. Like many across Northern Ireland, I participate in shooting, and I am familiar with the responsible role that shooting sports and lawful firearms ownership play in our society. Those activities are not confined to one background or one community; they are genuinely cross-community, bringing people together through sport, farming, conservation and rural life. They also support jobs through agriculture, gun shops, ranges, events and the wider rural economy. For many people in rural Northern Ireland, firearms are not a luxury or a hobby of convenience but an integral part of daily life used for pest control, livestock protection, land management and animal welfare. Any policy that affects firearms licensing must start from that reality. The proposals currently out for consultation have caused real concern among constituents, many of whom have contacted me directly.

The most significant issue raised with me is the proposal for substantial fee increases of up to 153% at a time when the firearms licensing system is not delivering an acceptable level of service. Applicants are experiencing lengthy and unpredictable delays, often running well beyond a year, and confidence in the system remains low. It is, therefore, neither fair nor reasonable to ask law-abiding certificate holders to pay considerably more for a service that, many feel, is not living up to the standards expected. Any move towards full cost recovery will be strongly resisted by the shooting representative organisations, especially as there remains a lack of efficiency, transparency and accountability.

There are also concerns about the proposed changes to the banded system, and many constituents believe that those changes add unnecessary complexity, mixing different types of firearms in ways that do not reflect how they are used in practice. Complexity increases the risk of administrative error, adds cost and places further strain on an already overstretched system without any clear benefit to public safety.

We must also consider the wider economic and social impact of the proposals. Shooting sports contribute significantly to rural economies and provide structured, responsible recreation for thousands of people. Policies that make lawful participation harder or more expensive risk undermining that contribution. Rural families are the backbone of our economy and should not be targeted unfairly with additional taxes and costs.

Law-abiding firearms users deserve fairness, transparency and, of course, a system that works. I urge the Minister to listen carefully to the genuine concerns being raised and go back to the drawing board with the consultation.

Mr Gaston: I welcome the announcement of the £50 million defence growth deal from the UK Government. It will benefit defence tech start-ups and small businesses in Northern Ireland. At a time when our economy needs confidence, jobs and long-term stability, any credible inward investment that strengthens our industrial base and creates employment must be welcomed and supported across the House. The nature of the investment and the quality jobs that it will create and sustain demonstrate the benefits of being part of the UK and of contributing to the wider defence industry across our nation. Northern Ireland has already been at the forefront of producing weapons that have been deployed in the fight against aggressors. It is vital that we build on that momentum and ensure that opportunities such as this translate into real jobs, new skills and prosperity for our people.

It was predictable that the Sinn Féin Economy Minister, who cost us the 300 Cantor Fitzgerald jobs, and the First Minister of no alternative would choose to boycott the event announcing the investment. Sinn Féin was happy to glorify acts of terrorism at Easter, something that was shamefully promoted on the Executive Twitter feed, but was not prepared to be seen when our UK defence industry brings quality jobs to Northern Ireland. No one is fooled by Sinn Féin/IRA's talk of peace and opposition to war. When Mrs O'Neill talks about choosing investing in people over weapons of war, countless families across Northern Ireland look at the empty chair at their dinner tables. The innocent victims of republican terrorism know only too well that Sinn Féin wallows in the blood of countless innocent victims every time it justifies and defends the Provisional murder campaign.

The truth of the investment is that it promotes the benefits of the Union by creating highly skilled jobs and strengthening our UK national security, neither of which Sinn Féin wants as it places its ideology over the importance of delivering for people in Northern Ireland.

Ms McLaughlin: I rise to speak again about women's health in Northern Ireland, an issue that affects more than half the population, yet it continues to be overlooked in policy and service delivery. The Assembly is not short of awareness. Motions have been passed, Members across parties have repeatedly raised the issue of women's health and commitments have been acknowledged, yet despite all that, women are still waiting and still being let down. Northern Ireland remains the only part of the UK without a dedicated women's health strategy. That is not a technical delay; it is a failure to turn words into action.

We see the consequences clearly in health inequality. Women in the most deprived communities can expect to live over five years less than those in the least deprived areas, with a 14-year gap in healthy life expectancy. Nowhere is that failure more visible than in gynaecology care, with over 37,000 women waiting for assessment or treatment at the point of diagnosis.

Those women live with chronic pain, and their symptoms are too often dismissed. I met a girl the other day in my constituency, and she told me that she would never have believed that she would have to live the life that she has had to. She has been waiting seven years for a gynae intervention. What people are going through is shocking.

Meanwhile, progress is being made elsewhere in the UK. 'The Renewed Women's Health Strategy for England' aims to tackle medical misogyny. The Secretary of State for Health, Wes Streeting, has acknowledged that the National Health Service is failing women. That relaunched strategy contains measures to improve standards of care, including by ensuring that women are offered appropriate pain relief for invasive procedures. That progress has to be welcomed, but it also underlines the fact that Northern Ireland is falling even further behind. A comprehensive women's health strategy for here is long overdue. Nothing else is acceptable. We cannot continue to wait. The Minister must act with urgency, not only for women today but for future generations of women who risk growing up in a society that continues to treat them as second-class citizens when it comes to healthcare. Women in Northern Ireland deserve better. They deserve action now.

Mr Speaker: We will now move on to the ministerial statement on the response to —.

Mrs Dillon: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am glad to hear that DUP Members spent their weekend watching the Sinn Féin ard-fheis. It was well worth the viewing. It was an excellent weekend enjoyed by all who were there and by all who viewed it, so the fact that they watched it is really good.

I would be grateful, however, if the Speaker could review the statements of Deborah Erskine and Phillip Brett, and also possibly that of Timothy Gaston, and get back to me. Standing Order 24A(6)(d) sets out what Members' statements must not be used for. Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

Mr Speaker: OK. The —

Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I will be brief. I want to raise an issue that has come up before. It relates to questions for oral answer to the Executive Office yesterday. Ministers are asked a direct question. They may not answer it, but then, later on, a Member, usually from their own party, will ask them the same or a very similar question, to which they provide a fuller answer. I would like to hear formally from the Speaker's Office whether doing that is in violation of any Standing Order. I am happy to wait for advice.

Mr Speaker: That is an issue that is similar to one that you have raised before. The previous response was that we are not responsible for how Ministers answer questions. I do, however, encourage Members to continue to interrogate Ministers so that they get appropriate answers to questions.

Mr Chambers: Mr Speaker, owing to illness, I was not in my place yesterday when you called me during Question Time. I apologise to you and the House.

Mr Speaker: Thank you very much, Mr Chambers.

Mr Brett: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 3 March, I submitted a question for priority written answer to the Department of Finance about the Sinn Féin-linked bookshop, the Green Cross. It was due to be answered on 19 March and was about when that bookshop had last paid rates. I have not received an answer to that question, despite having followed up on it on a number of occasions. If the Minister of Finance is refusing to answer a question about a Sinn Féin-linked bookshop, can you advise me how I can go about obtaining an answer that I, as an elected representative, am entitled to receive?

Mr Speaker: I have spoken before about answers to questions for written answer and about ministerial responses in the Assembly. The Assembly is here to hold Ministers to account. When Ministers do not allow themselves to be held to account by not responding at the appropriate time, that is a slur on Members of the House and therefore a slur on the people of Northern Ireland, who elected them in the first instance.

I do not have any particular authority to enforce that, unfortunately. If I did, I would. We all know, however, that questions for priority written answer are to be answered within a couple of days. Your question should therefore have been answered by this stage. I suspect that there are probably other Ministers in the same position and that we just do not know about them. I continue to encourage Ministers to take their responsibilities, the Pledge of Office and their accountability to the Assembly most seriously and to respond to Members when they ask questions, because it is important for the functioning of the Assembly that, in their role, they cooperate as much as possible. I know that they are busy people and that they have to work extremely hard to cover all the ground, but that does not excuse them. I did the Minister of Health job, and I got more questions than nearly all the other Ministers put together; we still sought to get all the questions answered and to respond to Members. It is incumbent on Ministers to do their job and ensure that they respond.

You will not want any further points of order after that long lecture.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): I hope that everyone in the Chamber agrees that teaching is a profession that has the utmost importance in our society. Every day, teachers and school leaders shape the lives, aspirations and futures of our children and young people. Our education system depends on their professionalism, skill and commitment.

For too long, workload has been a persistent issue for the profession. Previous efforts to address the issue have not achieved the change necessary, and continuing on the same path would inevitably lead to a further deterioration in well-being and morale and in the attractiveness of teaching and school leadership as a career. More sustained, system-wide action is required. That is why I am taking forward TransformED, my wider programme of reform to modernise the education system, to strengthen teaching as a profession and to raise standards for all learners. Through TransformED, we are deliberately creating the conditions in which teachers can thrive by increasing investment in professional learning, improving coherence across the system, reducing unnecessary bureaucracy and ensuring that support is focused on what matters most: excellent teaching and learning.

Addressing workload is at the centre of my TransformED agenda. The curriculum, assessment and qualifications reforms have been designed to remove avoidable pressures, to simplify processes and to give time back to teachers to focus on high-quality teaching and learning. I therefore appointed an independent panel to undertake a comprehensive review of teacher and school leader workload. The panel's report provides a robust, evidence-informed assessment of the pressures facing the profession and sets out 27 recommendations for change across the education system. Today, I set out my Department's formal response to that review.

Addressing workload is not optional; it is essential if we are to value the profession, retain talented teachers, support effective leadership and ensure the long-term stability of our education system.

Before I go into detail on the actions that I propose, it is important to contextualise my commitment to the teaching profession and to address some of the recent claims about the teaching workforce. Since my appointment as Education Minister, I have championed the teaching profession and fought to ensure that it is properly recognised. Significant progress has been made in improving teacher pay, reflecting both the importance of the profession and the level of responsibility that teachers carry every day. Since February 2024, the starting salary for teachers has increased by 36·4% to £32,916, while average teacher pay has risen by almost £10,000. Those changes place teacher remuneration on a more competitive and sustainable footing and clearly signal my commitment to recognising teachers' professional status.

When it comes to recent claims that large numbers of teachers are leaving the profession, while I take workload and well-being extremely seriously, it is important to distinguish between anecdotal reports and the available evidence on workforce trends. Claims that large numbers of teachers have left the profession due to burnout are not borne out by payroll data. The employment data for teachers continues to show that there is a broadly stable teaching workforce, which suggests that, while pressures undoubtedly exist, they are not translating into the widespread departure of teachers.

That said, there is absolutely no room for complacency, and I am steadfast in my belief that action must be taken to address teacher and school leader workload and to ensure that the profession remains a desirable career choice. The action plan that I will publish today represents a decisive shift from piecemeal initiatives to a coordinated, system-level approach. It brings together actions to address each of the 27 recommendations, either fully or in part and with clear ownership, governance and timescales.

A consistent and powerful message from the independent review panel was that excessive administration has eroded professional trust and drawn teachers and school leaders away from what matters most, which is teaching, learning and supporting pupils. In response, we will take action to identify and reduce unnecessary administrative tasks and excessive workload, in schools and at system level. The Teachers' Negotiating Committee (TNC) will establish a subgroup to monitor system-wide administrative requirements, evaluate progress made on reducing bureaucracy and identify further actions required to reduce the administrative burden on schools. In addition, a Baker day in the 2026-27 academic year will be designated specifically to allow schools to engage in a structured discussion to identify and reduce excessive workload at a local level.

Excessive tracking and planning requirements were among the workload concerns that were highlighted during the independent review process. We will take steps to ensure that tracking and planning are purposeful and proportionate and that they are focused on learning support and professional dialogue rather than on compliance or excessive data capture. The Department will issue clear guidance that no more than three formal, school-wide tracking points should take place in a school year. That will provide a clear and consistent benchmark across the system and is intended to curb the growth of repetitive, low-value tracking practices. On planning for learning, the action plan reinforces the principle that planning should support teachers to deliver high-quality teaching and learning and facilitate meaningful professional dialogue at school level. Clear guidance will be issued to schools to ensure that planning processes are proportionate, focused on impact and that they do not place an unnecessary administrative burden on teachers or school leaders.

It is clear that the role of principals has become substantially more complex over the past decade. Balancing educational leadership with their significant operational responsibilities for safeguarding, workforce and accountability is challenging. If we are to secure a high-performing and sustainable school system, we must ensure that school leadership remains a viable, attractive and properly supported role. That is why the action plan responds decisively on that issue. We have committed to the phased introduction of a cadre of administrative support for schools to test what works best in the Northern Ireland school system. The administrative support roles will be designed to absorb non-educational tasks such as complaints-handling, compliance, procurement and data management, freeing leaders to focus on teaching, learning and improvement. In parallel, a review of the workload agreement will examine the working patterns of school leaders, and schools will be advised to appoint a designated governor as a workload and well-being champion to strengthen governance awareness and support. We will also develop an improved and more robust complaints-handing framework for schools, which will be designed to support early resolution, provide greater consistency across the system and ensure that vexatious or unreasonable complaints are managed proportionately. By strengthening system-level support and clarifying processes, we seek to protect leadership capacity and reduce unnecessary workload.

The review indicated that workload pressures are often compounded by the lack of clarity on working time expectations. We accept the panel's conclusions that, while an average working week of 35 to 40 hours may be reasonable, it would be unreasonable for teachers to habitually work an average of 40 or more hours per week across the school year. Boards of governors will therefore be reminded of their duty of care to avoid excessive workload cultures, and the TNC will develop protocols for identifying and addressing sustained excessive workload. In addition, guidance will be issued to provide greater flexibility for teachers, allowing work to be completed at a time and place of their choice if their principal has agreed that their presence is not required in the school. We will also develop and issue clear protocols and guidance to support consultation and agreement on collective activities within directed time budgets. That approach will help to strengthen professional dialogue, build mutual understanding and ensure that directed time is used fairly and proportionately while giving principals and boards of governors greater clarity and confidence in managing arrangements in line with their duty of care.

Workload reduction must sit alongside professional empowerment. Through TransformED, every teacher will have guaranteed access to high-quality, meaningful professional learning throughout their career. By strengthening induction, early career support, mentoring and leadership development, we aim to ensure that teachers are supported and that professional learning contributes to confidence, well-being and retention so that teaching remains a fulfilling and respected career.

Managing complex pupil behaviour will be a priority within teacher professional learning funding in the 2026-27 academic year, with additional training, guidance and system-level support to ensure that schools are not left to manage these challenges alone. A key theme emerging from the independent review was the importance of restoring professional trust and ensuring that teachers are able to exercise their judgement without undue pressure. Exposure to challenging behaviour and online abuse is a significant contributor to teachers' stress and detrimental to their well-being. The Education Authority (EA) is in the final stages of agreeing a preventing violence at work framework. An awareness campaign will be taken forward to highlight the importance of respecting the professional judgement of teachers and engaging with them in an appropriate and proportionate manner. Teachers are highly trained professionals, and strong outcomes for children are best achieved where relationships between schools, parents and communities are built on mutual respect and trust.

It is clear that action is required to address the demands placed on teachers and school leaders in relation to special educational needs support. Through the SEN reform agenda, we are moving towards a more child-centred, needs-based system that is focused on providing early intervention and reducing reliance on rigid processes. Crucially, the development of an integrated workforce planning framework will examine the demands placed on teachers and school leaders in relation to SEN, with actions to address identified pressures.

The workload review rightly identified generative AI (GenAI) as a significant opportunity to reduce teacher and school leader workload. We are committed to ensuring that the role of AI is fully embedded in the planned refresh of education technology and approached in a coordinated, strategic and professionally guided manner. The Department will invest over £10 million to support the roll-out of system-aware generative AI tools, alongside high-quality professional development and training, over the next two years. Through that initiative, teachers and school leaders will be supported through a structured programme of professional learning designed to build confidence, understanding and practical capability in the use of GenAI. The focus will be on safe, ethical and effective application, with staff encouraged to develop skills progressively and apply GenAI to everyday professional activities in ways that directly support teaching, leadership and workload reduction. International research demonstrates that GenAI can provide support and achieve significant time savings in activities such as lesson and resource planning, drafting feedback, summarising pupil work, managing documentation and supporting administrative tasks. The potential of GenAI has already been tested in a Northern Ireland context through two proof-of-concept studies led by C2k in partnership with Microsoft and Google. Findings from participating schools have been extremely encouraging and include significant time savings and improvements in well-being for teachers and school leaders, along with improvements in pupil attainment.

Finally, the Department welcomes the panel’s endorsement of the redesigned school inspection framework. The new framework is explicitly focused on rebuilding trust across the education system, reducing the workload associated with inspection and establishing a more supportive, proportionate and empowering approach to accountability. It also places a strong emphasis on a school’s capacity to develop and sustain a community of learning, encompassing internal and external relationships. Collegial practice is central to that approach, and the Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI) will recognise and reflect on that in its reports.

The action plan is ambitious, but it is also realistic and deliverable. A workload implementation group has been established to maintain momentum and accountability, and it will work closely with the Teachers' Negotiating Committee. Regular progress reporting will ensure transparency. I am clear, however, that delivery will depend on collaboration, shared ownership and sustained industrial stability. The action plan represents a significant commitment to the profession, and it is in everyone’s interest that it be given the space to succeed.

The action plan sends a clear message: the well-being, expertise and professional judgement of teachers and school leaders is vital. By tackling workload systemically, investing in leadership and professional learning and reforming the structures that generate an unnecessary burden, we are taking decisive steps to ensure that teaching remains a valued, sustainable and attractive profession.

Mr McCrossan: Minister, thank you for your statement. I welcome your acknowledgement that previous interventions have failed to deliver meaningful change, which is a good admission given that your party has led the Department for over a decade.

What immediate, measurable actions will be implemented in the next 12 months to reduce the teacher workload in practice? How will those be independently monitored and reported? What direct impact do you expect it to have on classroom standards, special educational needs provision and, most importantly, the outcomes for our pupils, given the growing concerns from families that repeated reform announcements have not translated into real improvements in children's education?

Mr Givan: The statement outlined a response to all the issues that the Member asked me about in his supplementary question, so I commend the statement to him. We need to understand all the issues that face the profession and then to come up with a plan to address them. I have been doing that since I came into office. We have taken forward a series of reforms under TransformED. If we do not make changes, we retain the status quo, and that is what is placing all the unnecessary workload and burden on our teaching profession. We had not invested in the professional development of teachers for many years. I have been doing that. We have had significant investment through the teacher professional learning (TPL) programme that teachers and school leaders have very much welcomed.

For the response to be successful, collaboration and shared ownership are required, and that goes beyond me as the Minister of Education. I will lead the Department; I will come up with solutions and plans and will seek to implement them, but all of us, collectively, not just in the Chamber, need to work through the processes. It has to be shared and owned at the school level, and that will be the success of the reforms that we are taking forward. Where there is a willingness to implement the schemes, I am confident that they will make a real, tangible difference to the workload and pressures faced by our teachers and school leaders. I encourage Members to get behind the reforms and support the endeavours.

Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): I thank the Minister for his statement. I have to admit that, when I printed it off in my office, I thought that it was going to be a longer document; it feels very light, given how chronic the issue of teacher workload has been over many years and how intractable finding a resolution has proved to be. Is there enough here to say to the teaching profession that there is going to be a real change? I have heard about subgroups, protocols, guidance and TNC engagement, but what are the concrete actions? We know that an action plan is coming, but teachers will be looking at this and wondering what will change for them in the classroom.

Mr Givan: The response is comprehensive; it outlines the actions, there is a clear timetable and there are commitments. It responds to the 27 recommendations. When the trade unions came to me during the negotiation of a previous settlement for terms and conditions, workload had emerged as an issue through their consultation process. However, the ability to precisely define the issues proved difficult even for those who represent the teaching profession. That is why we jointly agreed to establish the review panel, which was chaired by a former permanent secretary, had representation from the trade union movement and had a former school leader as a panel member. The panel carried out the engagement and came forward with the 27 recommendations, and I am formally responding to them.

The document does not sit in isolation, however; it is very much connected to all the transformation programmes that we are taking forward. It should be read alongside all the other reforms that I have taken forward, which are comprehensive, whether it is on special educational needs or the proposals in the new framework. It is a very detailed report, and it should be read alongside all the work that we are doing on assessment, qualifications and the curriculum; all of which is being designed to assist with teacher workload. The review does not sit in isolation; it is very much part of the entirety of the transformation work that we are taking forward, and teachers will see clear benefits.

The Member asked what is in it for the teaching profession. I met the trade unions yesterday. They have been engaged in the process, and we went through the process for engagement. I was very much encouraged by the response from the leadership teams of those trade unions to the commitments. The action plan continues to build on the momentum and direction of travel, and that is something that they welcomed. Of course, there are still issues on which they will seek to get further progress. The establishment of some of the subgroups within the action plan and framework will be the vehicle through which those issues will continue to be addressed. That is very much continuing the momentum that we have built upon. There is more to do, but I welcome the engagement that I had with the school representatives through the trade unions, yesterday.

Mr Sheehan: The World Health Organization recognises burnout as an occupation-related phenomenon caused by prolonged and unmanaged workplace stress. Teachers in the North are dealing with the heaviest workloads in these islands, with higher stress, more unpaid hours and weaker systemic support. Does the Minister agree that after a decade of his party holding the Education Department, that is a poor reflection of how the Department is being run?

Mr Givan: Mr Speaker, there was not one question — not one — about the report; there was just the cheap, party-political attack that Sinn Féin has become accustomed to making when it comes to education. It is not interested in substance or content, but simply makes a cheap swipe.

Mr Robinson: I thank the Minister for his statement. I will expand on some of the earlier questions. Will the Minister set out how he expects the implementation of TransformED to help address the workload pressures?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for the question. Over the past two decades, across curriculum, statutory assessment and qualifications, Northern Ireland has relied on a model that has placed a disproportionate share of workload on schools and, in turn, individual teachers. That has driven avoidable workload by requiring schools to interpret vague curriculum and assessment expectations, design materials from scratch and manage complex assessment and moderation processes locally. Reducing the structural workload burden on teachers is a central long-term objective of the TransformED programme. Across curriculum, assessment and qualifications, the TransformED reforms have been deliberately designed to remove avoidable pressures, simplify processes and give teachers back time to focus on high-quality teaching and learning.

We are taking forward TransformED because we have listened to what the teachers and school leaders have told us. We have examined international best practice, and we have come forward with a clear plan and are implementing it. I am greatly encouraged by the feedback that I have had from the teaching profession — the school leaders and principals who are excited about the reforms that are taking place. Yes, we need to work through the reform, but the only way that we will get to the light at the end of the tunnel is by implementing these reforms. Failure to implement the reforms means retaining the status quo, but it is the status quo that has failed. That is what has created the burden; that is what is creating excessive workloads.

Mr Baker: Minister, I do not know whether you bury your head in the sand or think that everyone in here has come up the Lagan in a bubble. Last week, the Children's Law Centre, teaching unions and children's rights advocates voiced their very serious concerns around your SEN reform agenda. It is clear that the responsibility for SEN priorities and provision is being placed back on schools. You keep mentioning your TransformED. You are the one who is overloading the system. Every school leader has said that, time and time again. That is on you. You are not listening. Only a couple of weeks ago, you would not even take questions from this side of the House.

Mr Speaker: Mr Baker, I do not mind preambles, but I do not like rambles. Will you get to your question, please?

Mr Baker: OK. Will the Minister finally commit to listening to the like of the Children's Law Centre and school leaders and admit that his crusade is wrong, and then reset?

Mr Givan: The Member needs to listen to school principals in his constituency, some of whom are leading the TransformED agenda; actively participating in the curriculum reform process; leading by being on the principals' panel; and, when we implement policies, testing them and providing feedback. They are principals in the Member's constituency, serving pupils whom he claims to represent.

He does not want to listen to me because he is fixated on narrow, partisan politics. I ask him to listen to people in his community and those who are actively supporting what I am doing.

I would love Sinn Féin to help me with the SEN reform agenda. I would love Sinn Féin to allow the £1·7 billion capital programme for new schools to be implemented. I would love Sinn Féin to support me at the Executive table, where it has blocked my paper for nine months. Sinn Féin allowed only a discussion to take place on that capital investment. Sinn Féin therefore has a lot to reflect on when it comes to how it is participating in education. Focus —.

Mr Sheehan: Will you work in partnership with Sinn Féin?

Mr Givan: I will work in partnership with anyone who will follow the evidence about the education system. I have worked in partnership with the trade unions. I had constructive engagement with them yesterday. We went through the 27 recommendations and produced a plan. The challenge that I put to Sinn Féin is this: what is your plan? In two years, you have not presented a single plan to me, as Minister of Education, setting out what you would do. You know what you are against and what you want to frustrate, but what are you for, apart from taking cheap political shots?

Mr Sheehan: We are for giving girls the right to wear trousers in school.

Mr Speaker: Mr Sheehan, you had the Floor. It is now Mr Kingston's turn.

Mr Kingston: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I commend the Minister for his detailed and practical response to the report on the independent review of teacher workload. What does he say to those who are concerned that promises have been made about teacher workload before but not delivered on?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his question. He is right to highlight the fact that promises were made before but not delivered on, and that is why I have taken seriously the transformation process for the education system that I am leading in the Department.

Throughout the independent review of teacher workload and the development of the action plan that I have published today, I have been kept updated on emerging issues and on discussions with the teaching unions. Workload pressure is a long-standing issue that has multiple causes, and it has proven difficult to define the root cause and appropriate solutions. Over recent years, many of the workload actions identified by TNC have been delivered, but the Member will be aware that it is the actions that have not been delivered that often tend to be remembered.

Given the need to make further progress and the challenge in identifying the core issues, I decided to establish the independent review last year to examine the issue in detail and to bring all the previous work together into a single action plan. The plan translates the review's recommendations into practical, deliverable actions that protect professional autonomy, promote sustainable working practices and reinforce the status and importance of teaching. It represents a clear statement of intent that teachers' time, expertise and commitment are valued and that the system must work for them as well as through them.

Mrs Guy: Thank you, Minister, for your statement. We are always keen for you to come to the Chamber to speak with us. I will ask you a question that is specifically about the statement. There is no mention in it at all of special educational needs coordinators (SENCOs). We will debate a motion later today on the workload pressures that that workforce is experiencing in schools. Will there be anything in your action plan that will specifically address the pressures that SENCOs face?

Mr Givan: I will have more to say on that in response to the motion later, but, yes, the action plan includes how we can support schools administratively. Administrative support in schools is available for the whole school. It is not just about providing a personal assistant, so to speak, for the school principal. The action plan addresses principal and teacher workload, and that includes SENCO workload. My officials and I spoke about that issue yesterday with the trade unions. They asked that question, and I was able to give them an assurance that administrative support in schools can be utilised by the whole school.

Mrs Mason: Minister, from what I have heard this morning, you are trying to say that teachers are not leaving the profession and you have a stable workforce. That will be a slap in the face for many principals, who really struggle to fill vacancies. You said that you are "greatly encouraged" by the feedback from the teaching profession: I am horrified. I am horrified to hear the statistics: nine out of 10 teachers report burnout. Are you content having that on your watch? Are you, as Education Minister, seriously content that that is happening on your watch? Despite what you say in your statement, will you start listening to teachers and to the concern that nine out of 10 teachers are experiencing burnout?

Mr Givan: I met a school principal from the Member's constituency this morning. [Interruption.]

The Member does not want to hear about a school principal in her constituency. She has her clip for social media, and she is not interested in the response. That is typical of what we get from Sinn Féin. When I met the school principal from the Member's constituency this morning, she had nothing but praise regarding her vocation as a teacher; nothing other than what a worthy profession it is. I say this to Members: let us talk up our education system, not talk it down; let us encourage more young people to come into the profession, not put them off; and let us support them. As Minister, I am supporting them through all of my reform agenda to improve their circumstances, their terms and conditions and the structures in which they operate.

I thank the school leaders who have all been involved in helping me take forward the transformational work. That help has come from school leaders and teachers from every sector: Catholic maintained, controlled, integrated, special schools and Irish-language schools. They are all part of that work and have provided leadership and support.

When it comes to curriculum, which I have referenced, on the 13 subject working groups we had over 75 professionals involved from every school. They are providing us with their support, so, when the Member attacks me, she actually attacks the teaching profession, which is involved in that work. Get behind them. Do not talk them down.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Minister for his really important statement to the House.

Minister, some Members in the Chamber would do well to speak to the schools, principals and staff to hear what they have to say. Thank you for coming out to schools in South Antrim last week. We heard directly from them.

Will the Minister explain what he expects from AI and how it may assist in addressing some of the workload pressures?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for the invitation to visit a number of schools in her constituency last week. It was refreshing to hear what they had to say on the reforms that I will take forward through the support of the teaching profession.

The Member touches on a really important point that I have raised around how we can harness artificial intelligence and generative AI, something that, often, many people fear and, at times, rightly so. However, harnessed effectively, ethically and with the appropriate safeguards in place, it can be transformative. We have already piloted that work. We have had two proof-of-concept schemes with school leaders and teachers, working with Microsoft, Google and the Classroom 2000 (C2k) platform. That has proven to be impactful on the schools that piloted the work. We need to build on that. We need to allow that to be developed and rolled out across our education system.

The potential behind it is significant. An average reported workload reduction of 11 hours 52 minutes per week per participant is hugely significant for those who participated in the pilot, 75% of whom reported that GenAI had contributed to improvements in their well-being, and 41% of whom reported early improvements in pupil attainment, with a further 38% anticipating future benefits. Strong potential has also been identified for supporting SEN provision and inclusive practices. There are clear benefits in lesson creation, personalised support, automated feedback, qualitative feedback highlighting substantial reductions in lesson planning and a significant impact on school leadership and administrative workload, with almost half reporting time savings related specifically to leadership and management tasks.

I believe that there is huge potential for that. That is why I have said that I want to invest significantly in it. We have gone through all of the processes. I would be grateful if the Sinn Féin Finance Minister would sign off on it. It has been sitting in his Department for far too long.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Minister for the statement. We all know that there is burnout in the teaching profession, but the Minister is trying to change the system to make sure that it is attractive and that our teachers can continue in the workforce. I welcome the fact that he has been engaging with the trade unions. Are all the trade unions engaged in those conversations? Can he and the trade unions ensure the timely implementation of the proposed measures included in the statement today?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for that question. She is right to highlight the importance of the trade unions. That is why my team have been engaged with them. I have also been personally engaged with them, and the outworkings of the process, including setting up the panel, having the report commissioned and the recommendations in it came about from that engagement. We have gone through the recommendations. We have helped to produce the action plan, and I met them as recently as yesterday and spent time with them.

I respect trade unions. They engage with their membership, and I am sure that they will want to formally respond to the action plan in due course. However, the only way that we will be able to make the changes that will improve the conditions is by listening to the profession, engaging with its representatives — both school leaders and trade unions — which I have been doing, and coming forward with plans. They will rightly challenge the Department, the EA and the managing side of the education system. It is their job to do that, but we also need to have that shared responsibility and lead the processes of change over the next period of time. Therefore, I welcome that engagement. It has been constructive, and I publicly thank the trade unions for the engagement that they have had with me on the issue as recently as yesterday.

Ms Nicholl: I thank the Minister for his statement. He spoke about generative AI, and I think that the fact that Departments now have to develop policy in the absence of an Executive strategy is due to the Executive Office's negligence. However, my question is specifically around the curriculum and the move from skills to knowledge in the development of AI. How does he see that squaring with children being able to develop what they need to be future teachers who are able to deal with the workload and the workforce in general? Knowledge and AI are often interchangeable: how is that squared with the move away from skills?

Mr Givan: Digital literacy is hugely important, and the Member will be encouraged by the importance that we place on digital literacy when the new curriculum goes out for public consultation. We are not moving away from skills. Skills are hugely important. Having knowledge and mastery of subject matters is the foundation. Confidence through that subject knowledge allows you to build skills around critical thinking.

At a time of increased disinformation on social media, with the advent of generative AI, now, more than ever, we need a strong, knowledge-based education system. That is vital. Through powerful knowledge, you get powerful skills. It is not either/or; it is both. It is hugely important that we do that. The best way to develop skills is by having a powerful knowledge base, and that is the approach that we will take through the changes.

Mr McNulty: Teachers guide and inspire us with lessons from books and lessons for life. I have just watched a large group of primary-school students come into the Gallery wide-eyed and looking for inspiration, but I am sad to say that they will not have found much inspiration from the hate-filled exchanges between the two lead parties in our government: Sinn Féin and the DUP.

Some 91% of teachers surveyed in the North reported experiencing burnout, with 95% pointing to workload as a contributing factor. The independent review of teacher workload report points to social media as a partial contributor to increasing behaviour management issues and online abuse of teachers becoming all too common. Will the Minister commit to providing well-resourced and contemporary training to teachers, parents and students on the ever-growing challenges and harms presented by the omnipresence of social media?

Mr Givan: The Member is absolutely right when it comes to the dangers of social media and the negative impact that it has on our young people.

That is why I brought forward a clear policy position on smartphones for our post-primary schools and primary schools. They are not to be brought to primary schools, and they are not to be used in post-primary schools. We are seeking better ways to implement that policy, including giving a role to the ETI so that, as part of its inspection process, it also reports on the effectiveness or otherwise of a school's implementation of that prohibition. I agree with the Member about the damaging aspects of social media.

I thank the two primary schools for coming to Stormont. I was with them in the Senate Chamber before I came in here. Those two schools — Killowen Primary Coleraine and St John's Primary School — are part of a shared education endeavour. I was very much encouraged by my engagement with them, as I have been when I have visited hundreds of schools. I am always encouraged by what we have in our schools because of our excellent teachers. We are here to support them. I have a plan that will give them much better support, and I believe that we are moving in the right direction of travel.

Mr Brett: Minister, your statement mentioned the important pay settlement that you were able to secure for new teachers and the record increase for those teachers who are in post. Is there an Executive commitment, right across the political spectrum, to ensure that funding is in place to support that? That was one of the strongest messages that was sent to teachers because it showed that we value them by ensuring not only that the profession is recognised and that the starting salary is high but that those teachers who have experience and dedication continue to be remunerated correctly.

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for that question. He is right about the work that went in to resolving a three-year industrial dispute. Indeed, there had been action short of strike for nearly a decade. The past two years have been one of the most stable industrial periods that we have had, and that has been as a result of providing the appropriate settlements on teachers' pay and conditions. A new graduate from our teacher training colleges would have started on only £23,000, well below any counterparts in the United Kingdom. I moved to increase that, and I have now done so by 36%, so it is a financially attractive profession. It is often a vocational calling: people come into the teaching profession because they want to empower and support children and young people. It is right that we seek to recognise that through the appropriate remuneration, and we have been able to move to do that. We have increased all teachers' pay by nearly £10,000 on average. That has been the right thing to do.

Obviously, when we look at this financial year, we see that the Executive's finances are in a very difficult position across a whole range of Departments. The challenge will be in how we deliver on public-sector pay, but I do not support the notion that has been put forward that pay settlements should be found within Departments' existing allocations, because, through version 2 of the Budget, my Department faces a shortfall somewhere in the region of £500 million to £600 million. That is saying, "Agree to the Budget, sign up to something that leaves Education short by £0·6 billion, and, by the way, go figure out how you are going to pay your teachers". Does anyone seriously believe that the Executive should support that proposition? I will not support it. All our public-sector workers should be dealt with equally, while recognising that there will be some variance between different professions. To place that responsibility on my Department is effectively to say that there should not be any increase in pay, and I will not support that approach.

Mr Donnelly: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, you mentioned industrial relations. Will your announcement do anything to address the ongoing industrial dispute with the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT)?

Mr Givan: I believe and hope that it will. Again, I have said that people should be given the space to work through this. I say this to the NAHT: thank you for your engagement on this and for raising issues. You have articulated the needs of school leaders, as have all of the trade unions that are dealing with the issues, whether that is the Ulster Teachers' Union (UTU), the Irish National Teachers' Organisation (INTO), the National Education Union (NEU) or NASUWT. There are some others, but, along with the NAHT, those are the four recognised official ones. They have been engaged in that process, and the NAHT has brought forward its issues. I was encouraged yesterday by the recognition that the action plan has reflected that and seeks to find a way through supporting school leaders in particular and addressing workloads and the challenges that they are facing. Ultimately, it is a matter for the NAHT and all the other unions as to how they respond officially, but I certainly believe that they want to see progress being made. I believe that they recognise that the document contains a route to achieve that. However, in order for us to get to the end destination, we need to work through all those issues. That requires industrial stability, shared ownership and collaboration and partnership, and I hope that that will be the case when it comes to the trade unions.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, a good teacher knows how to deal with messing and attention-seeking. I am afraid that, in the Chamber today, we have seen messing, attention-seeking and squabbling for theatrical purposes from your party and Sinn Féin, which is genuinely pathetic. You are collectively responsible for our education system and for setting a Budget. Today's spectacle is genuinely shameful.

I want to ask a question about teachers and teacher development days. Your TransformED agenda, with its upsides and downsides, will require a significant additional number of teacher development days. Teachers deserve those in order to familiarise themselves with your reform proposals and be trained up. However, that creates an additional burden on parents, who have to deal with significant additional school closures. Are you comfortable with that, and have you made a calculation of the average additional cost to workers who have to take time off or pay for childcare on those extra days when schools are closed because of your agenda?

Mr Givan: I am sure that the Member will lead by example in future after that rebuke and will not engage in the very same behaviour that he has accused others of. He does it himself. Indeed, the first Member who had the Floor, Mr McCrossan, engaged in exactly the behaviour for which he has just rebuked others. People will see through that shallowness from the Opposition.

The question on the substantive issue is a valid one, and I thank the Member for raising it. There is a balance when it comes to development days — Baker days — and how they are utilised effectively. It is important that, as we go through the transformation, teachers need to be given the opportunity to engage in it at the school level and to work through the issues; that is something that the teaching profession has relayed to me. Therefore, we have to facilitate an opportunity for them to do so. There are, clearly, minimum requirements for the number of days on which schools have to be open, and provision is made when it comes to teaching. I will, in no way, seek to undermine that. I have to listen to the teaching profession, because it has asked for those opportunities to engage in the transformation work, and it is only right that we provide that support to them.

Mr Gaston: The Minister rightly praises progress on teachers' pay. Minister, when will you take the same action for classroom assistants, who face months without pay each year, as they, too, play an integral part in pupil learning? Many classroom assistants received just two weeks' pay in April because of the Easter break and now face a gap from July until the end of September without income. No one in the Chamber will go three months without pay, so why should classroom assistants? When can we expect you to bring forward a solution for that?

Mr Givan: The Member is right to praise the work of classroom assistants, and I join him in that. That is why, as part of SEN reform, I want to be able to provide opportunities for career development and pathways to enhance what classroom assistants are able to provide in our schools and to give them the professional support that will allow them to develop, including when it comes to better pay.

I say to the Member that the Executive supported a new business case — it was collectively supported by all the parties in the Executive — that contained a significant increase in terms and conditions for support staff, including classroom assistants as well as a range of different support staff. Significant investment by the Executive was required to provide the financial support for that.

Those support staff also sit within the national joint-working agreements at a UK-wide level. We feed into that process. Support staff have had pay rises as a result of the framework that they are engaged in. Teaching pay sits within a Northern Ireland framework and is subject to negotiations at a Northern Ireland level, but support staff are handled at a UK-wide level, and, over the past number of years, they have received pay rises as a result of that. We all want to do more. We all want to give more, recognising the important contribution that they make. That is why, through the reform of the SEN model, I want to identify greater ways in which to recognise our support staff, especially our classroom assistants.

Mr Burrows: I welcome the Minister's statement. There is much merit in some aspects of the action plan. At the outset, I will say that some of the conduct today has been really disappointing. One area that we should not have a political slanging match about is our children's education.

I will make a couple of points. Burnout is about more than workload. It is about feeling valued and about a person's overall morale. I worry about some issues in schools that are described to me as "taboo", such as workplace violence. I speak to teaching assistants and teachers who are being bullied and injured in their workplace, some of whom end up in hospital with concussion and broken bones. That is a significant issue affecting teachers' morale, and we need to deal with it. I keep being told that sub teachers —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Question.

Mr Burrows: Does the Minister agree that there is a responsibility to deal with those issues, including the issue of sub teachers and that of EA-induced bureaucracy? I am told that, every week, the EA sends a dump of emails to school principals who then have to disaggregate it all and decide who to send it to, which takes them a lot of time. Does the Minister agree that, while there is much merit in the action plan, there is much more to do to support teachers against workplace violence, deal with the EA's bureaucracy and fully support teachers who need to get sub teachers?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for the question and for the encouraging comments that he made about aspects of the proposals. It is important that we work through them in order to allow them to be implemented. The benefit will then be accrued to the teaching profession.

The Member mentioned workplace violence and poor behaviour in our schools, which is extremely concerning. It happens in all schools; it is not unique to one setting. Principals have raised the issue with me. A clear framework will be established in the action plan, and there is a commitment to publish that by the end of June to recognise the importance associated with it. It should be of concern to all of us that there is workplace violence, including in our primary schools, towards some of our teachers. It is a regular occurrence, not an irregular one. That is not appropriate. There clearly needs to be support for teaching staff and children on whom it has an impact. Parental responsibility also needs to be engaged. Some pupils who show that behaviour will come from challenging backgrounds. Principals tell me that, at times, when they make contact with a child's home, the parents are very defensive of their child, who can do no wrong. Those parents do not want to engage constructively. That is not acceptable. Schools are respected institutions, and our teachers are trusted. We have to place great value in them. When they seek to work through issues, we need to make sure that the supports from outside services and in the home are there in a positive way. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. I stand very much behind our teaching professionals as they seek to address that issue. Behavioural policy is very much something that I will look at. I intend to provide greater clarity on the expectations and consistency of practice across our schools and how we deal with that.

The Member is right about EA bureaucracy. That is why a subcommittee will be established in the TNC that will look at identifying what bureaucracy is necessary. We should ask of schools only what is needed, not what is nice to have. Where unnecessary information is being sought, I want to reduce that. Teachers want to focus on what they do best, which is teaching in the classroom. Often, so much of their time is spent dealing with issues other than teaching.

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

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): In compliance with section 52 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I will make the following statement on the meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) in the education sectoral format that was held on 22 April this year. The Minister of Finance has agreed that I will make the statement on behalf of us both.

The meeting was held in Rathvarna Youth Resource Centre in Lisburn. It was attended by me; Hildegarde Naughton TD, the Minister for Education and Youth in the Republic of Ireland; and John O'Dowd MLA, the Minister of Finance. I chaired the meeting. Topics for discussion were addressing educational disadvantage, special educational needs and early years education. We also received a presentation from Creative Connections.

Ministers noted the continued cooperation between the Departments on the pilot cooperation programme to address educational disadvantage. The Council acknowledged the progress of the RAISE programme, including the calls for and selection of locality-led projects to deliver against objectives in the strategic area plans for the RAISE localities. We also welcomed the progress of the teachers' research exchange (T-REX) platform and the Creative Connections arts education pilot programme, which are connecting education professionals across both jurisdictions and empowering young people to shape their own learning experiences. The Council noted the continued delivery of existing PEACE PLUS projects and the exploration of further funding award opportunities that focus on empowering and investing in young people.

Ministers received an update from the CEO of Middletown Centre for Autism, Stephen Douthart, and the Council recognised the continuing cooperation and positive reciprocal collaboration on a variety of challenges in the special educational needs sector between the two jurisdictions. The NSMC welcomed the progress that is being made by the two Education Departments and Middletown Centre for Autism to facilitate and maintain the delivery of the centre's range of services. Building on the successful North/South teacher training event delivered by Middletown Centre for Autism on school non-attendance among autistic young people, Ministers noted that both Departments are facilitating further cooperation among teachers and sharing experiences and information on current trends in education provision to those with special needs. The Council welcomed the establishment of further policy exchange events between officials and experts from each Department to discuss issues and potential solutions to shared challenges in the area of SEN, and it looks forward to further updates.

The NSMC welcomed the cooperation between officials from the Department of Education and the Department of Children, Disability and Equality (DCDE) in the area of early education, learning and care. Ministers noted the commitment of the two Departments to engage in cooperation in a way that builds on existing work being progressed between them. The Council agreed that officials should explore potential options for further collaboration and knowledge exchange and provide an update at a future meeting. It also welcomed ongoing work on enhancing cooperation and collaboration on specific initiatives in the areas of equality and inclusion.

Ministers received a presentation on the Creative Connections pilot programme from departmental officials in the Department of Education and the Department of Education and Youth (DEY) and from Creative Connections, which is a cross-border scheme that was designed to bring creativity and the arts into schools to enhance learning, teaching and assessment through creative partnerships. The Council acknowledged the strong progress made by the programme to date, which has resulted in its being confirmed for continuation and further development in 2026-27.

The Council agreed to hold its next meeting in the education sectoral format in the autumn of 2026. I am now happy to take questions.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, that was a very short statement. There was some interesting stuff in it, but I am going to ask about something that was not in it. In December 2023, some progress was announced, although it has not been followed through on, on making it easier for pupils from the North — Northern Ireland — to apply for top Central Applications Office (CAO) courses in the South. You yourself have very theatrically complained about that structural issue in the Chamber. What are you doing to make it easier for Northern students to get into Trinity College Dublin (TCD), University College Dublin (UCD), Dublin City University (DCU) and all the rest? Did you raise the issue at that meeting, and if not, why not?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, the Member acknowledged that the content of his question was not in the statement, so whether you wish to answer it is up to you. I am happy to move on.

Mr Givan: Normal protocol is that Members ought to ask questions that relate to the statement. That was not in the statement, so it is not relevant. The leader of the Opposition should focus on asking questions that relate the statement. Rather than just make that point to the Member, however, I will say that it is an issue of concern for me. It is an issue that I have recently raised again with the Minister for the Economy, because responsibility for higher education access rests with the Department for the Economy. I very much would support the Republic of Ireland giving proper recognition to the qualifications that our young people have, and I will happily engage collectively to try to get the Republic of Ireland to respect qualifications from Northern Ireland. It was not on the agenda and was not a matter of discussion, but it is an active issue, outside of that meeting, that I am pursuing.

Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): I thank the Minister for his statement. He referenced an update provided by the CEO of Middletown Centre for Autism. Can the Minister provide a further update on the SEN reform agenda? As part of that, there was an action on reviewing the work and functions of Middletown Centre for Autism, with a view, according to evidence that the Committee heard, for that role to be enhanced. Can you provide an update on where that sits?

Mr Givan: Within the SEN work, the update that Stephen Douthart provided on Middletown was very much about what more it can do with the expertise that it has to provide support to schools to address autism. That was a matter that we discussed. A landscape review of the Middletown Centre for Autism will be carried out, and that will provide an opportunity to ensure that the current purposes for which it is commissioned are being fulfilled. It is also an opportunity to look at what more it could do. We discussed where we can enhance that provision, subject to all the caveats around how that can be resourced and so on. I think that the landscape review, which will be commissioned shortly, is an opportunity to consider and address that particular issue.

Mr Sheehan: The education system in the South is by no means perfect, but the educational outcomes there far exceed the outcomes here in the North. Far fewer young people in the South leave school without qualifications, and far more are going on to third-level education. Can the Minister point us to what lessons he has learned in his engagements with his counterparts in the South that can be transferred to the education system here?

Mr Givan: The Member is right: there are better outcomes for young people in the education system in the South. That is why we have looked at it and why we have incorporated into our transformation programme some of what the Republic of Ireland is doing. For that to be brought into the process, a former chief inspector in the Republic of Ireland is part of the international ministerial advisory panel, directly inputting into the processes that we are taking forward. We are harnessing that information.

The South faces similar issues with the increasing numbers of children with SEN and how to work through those issues, so my officials are in constant engagement with those in the Republic so that we can learn from what they have been doing. I believe that the South can learn from some of the practices that we are taking forward. Where there can be joint collaboration on these endeavours, I am very much up for that happening. I have already acted to incorporate input from the South formally through my processes, and I will continue to do so.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, before I take another question, questions must be related to the statement. Members have a copy of the statement. The next question that is not related to the statement will not be taken.

Mr Robinson: I thank the Minister for his statement, and I hope that my question is in relation to it. Can the Minister provide an update on capital projects for special schools?

Mr Givan: Yes, I can, because SEN was discussed at the North/South meeting. We talked about the need for capital provision for special schools. The Member's question is related. I can say to the Assembly on this issue that, over the past decade, particularly the past five years, there has been extraordinary growth in the demand for specialist places, with over 30,000 children having more-complex needs and a formal statement of SEN, something that we touched on and that is shared in both jurisdictions. As a result, there has been a 49% increase in the number of pupils attending a special school and a 205% increase in the number of pupils requiring a place in specialist provision in mainstream schools (SPiMs). Projections indicate that demand will continue to rise over the next 10 years, meaning a need for over 6,000 additional places in our special schools and over 500 new SPiMs places.

The SEN capital investment programme provides a structured approach to meeting that demand around maintenance, new specialist classes and extension and refurbishment of special schools. In the past two years, there has been an investment of over £110 million in the SEN capital investment programme. That has created 242 SPiMs places, and 98 additional classrooms in special schools. We have had two major extensions, at Kilronan School and Lisanally Special School. Those are now on-site, and the business case is under review by the Department of Finance for the first of the new Belfast schools. A key aspect of SEN capital investment was the publication of the special schools plan of action.

This is an important issue, and we have been dealing with it in how we can move it forward. To update the Assembly: I recently decided to approve three major priority capital projects in the special schools plan of action to allow them to move to the planning and design stages. They are a 320-pupil new-build school for Longstone, a 220-pupil extension to St Gerard's Special School and a new 500-pupil special school in south Belfast. Those are three significant projects that I have approved to move into the planning phases to get to the pre-tender stage. That decision builds on my previous decisions for Sperrinview, Knockevin and the second campus at Ardnashee.

Mr Burrows: On the special educational needs aspect of the statement, can any learning be elicited from the increase in the number of children turning up at school who are behind on major milestones such as toilet training? That seems to be a major issue; I am sure that it is island-wide.

Mr Givan: Yes, it is a challenge. It is why we have invested in early years intervention through the early learning childcare strategy. Notably, one principal informed me that of the 26 nursery-school children that she has, 13 did not come toilet trained. That figure will alarm people: half of the pupils in a nursery-school class were not toilet trained. Rather than nursery-school teachers being able to engage children in learning, they are having to provide them with basic toilet training. That speaks to a real challenge. It is impacting on the early years provision. It needs to be addressed, and not just within education. Before those children got to nursery school, there was clearly a failure by other services to detect that issue and to support those families.

Mr Kingston: I thank the Minister for his statement on the education-themed meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council, which shows the advantages of practical cooperation for mutual benefit. In addition to meeting his Irish counterparts, has the Minister met UK Ministers in recent months?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members should not stray into questions that are not related to the statement. Members know that, and they also know what they are doing. Minister, it is up to you whether you answer. The next question in a similar vein will not be taken.

Mr Givan: I appreciate that, but given that I gave latitude to Mr O'Toole, I will give latitude to my colleague who asked that question. I answered Mr O'Toole. In order to give equality of treatment, which I am sure that all Members would support, it would be unfair of me to discriminate against my colleague from North Belfast.

He is right about the engagement. North/South engagement is important. So, too, is east-west engagement. I have had many meetings with my counterparts; most recently, I met Louise Sandher-Jones MP, Minister for Veterans and People. That was to discuss how the armed forces covenant is being implemented within education. I recently met the Secretary of State, the Rt Hon Hilary Benn MP; the Rt Hon Nick Thomas–Symonds MP, Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office; Matthew Patrick MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Northern Ireland Office; Olivia Bailey MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Minister for Early Education) and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Minister for Equalities) at the Department for Education. The list goes on.

That engagement takes place whether it is North/South or indeed east-west.

Mrs Guy: Thank you, Minister. You will be aware that a number of really innovative projects are being taken forward as part of the RAISE programme in our constituency of Lagan Valley. Can you confirm for how long the RAISE funding is set to be available? Does it ensure that we will see long-term value from the programme?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for that question. It was discussed at the meeting by way of an update on a number of those RAISE projects. I am excited about the various projects that have come forward and that we are now moving into that implementation period. All of that is being funded through the Shared Island initiative, and Ministers have indicated that the support that has been there will continue. It is in the region of around €20 million; that is what funds the RAISE initiatives. I hope that we can move now. Having implemented the schemes, I want to open up discussions on how we can continue them, and not just for a two-year period on which the original offer was based. How can we extend that? I know that the South is open to that conversation taking place. We need to see the roll-out of the various projects. That allows evaluation and any refinement to take place, to allow us to go back to the South and say, "Can we continue with this funding? Here is how we would change it", or, based on the evidence, it may not need to be changed at all if it proves to be successful. The South is open to having that conversation with us. I will certainly take any opportunity to get funding from whatever source.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Minister for his statement to the House. I welcome the fact that special educational needs was discussed at the meeting, given the importance that it has in our school community. Will the Minister provide an update on further special educational needs provision, with particular reference to Dromore?

Mr Givan: I can. I am delighted to advise that my Department is progressing plans for a new priority special school called Quillyburn Special School, which will be located on a greenfield site owned by the Education Authority on the Quillyburn Road in Dromore. The new Quillyburn Special School will provide state-of-the-art, purpose-built accommodation for up to 275 pupils that is designed to meet a wide range of learning, therapeutic and well-being needs. I am particularly pleased that Quillyburn Special School will be co-located alongside a new-build Dromore High School on the same site. It is important, though, that I am absolutely clear: these will be two separate schools, each with its own leadership, ethos, identity and educational mission, tailored to the distinct needs of their respective school communities. At this stage, we are moving through the various processes, but I am pleased with the progress that is being made and the prioritisation that is being given to the development of that location.

At the meeting, we discussed the importance of SEN, SEN placements and capital investment in our special schools, and, today, I have been able to update the House on some areas where we are moving forward on the planning stages for three special schools. As well as those, Quillyburn Special School, co-located with Dromore High School, is a priority, and we are making good progress on it. I commend all the school leaders who have been involved in that process.

Mr McCrossan: Minister, as you well know, SEN families are at breaking point. Parents are not asking for any special treatment here, just basic support. They wait months and sometimes years for that intervention. Children are in limbo and parents are forced to fight. Teachers are stretched beyond capacity. Meanwhile, support in the South is getting to our children earlier without the same barriers or bureaucracy. Do you accept that the system continues to fail families? When will you stop talking about reform and deliver it for those who are affected?

Mr Givan: I am delivering the reform. There are clear plans and they are being implemented. That is why £27·5 million of funding was allocated by the Finance Minister on the transformation of SEN. We are already taking forward tangible changes that are having a positive impact. I would not present the Republic of Ireland as a panacea when it comes to how it deals with SEN. It has challenges and so have England, Scotland and Wales. The Labour Government have had to bail out local authorities to the tune of billions of pounds because of the challenges that they face. The challenges that we have are not unique. They are happening everywhere. However, we have a clear pathway to try to make improvements here. We are making improvements. Is it good enough? No, it is not. We must be better at identifying placements earlier — we are making progress on that — and at getting new schools. We need to do better, and that is a collective endeavour that requires all of us in the Executive to provide the appropriate support.

Parents should not have to fight for basic support. They should not have to get a statement in the first instance; they go down that route because they do not get support. We need to change our systems so that there is support in schools for the early years without parents having to get a legal document to say, "You must", because that does not always produce the support. That is why we need to make the changes that we propose.

Mr Gaston: The statement speaks in grand terms of what the North/South Ministerial Council is doing to help to address educational underachievement. Minister, how many programmes are running to tackle educational underachievement amongst working-class Protestant boys? How many programmes to tackle that problem operate on a North/South basis, and what funding is involved?

Mr Givan: Numerous schemes operate through various funding mechanisms. Targeting social need — TSN — funding goes into all schools, including those in working-class Protestant communities, in every sector. The extended schools programme is another scheme that operates on the basis of free school meal entitlement, which can unlock funding for schools in those areas. The RAISE programme is designed to address educational underachievement, albeit it is not available in every part of Northern Ireland but only in the areas that are selected for it.

The question that I have posed is this: how effective is the expenditure, and is it being used to achieve the purpose for which it was allocated? It is a legitimate question, and I would welcome Members' further scrutiny of that, because we need to ensure that the funding is spent effectively.

I want to make sure that we tackle educational underachievement. That is one of the underpinning reasons for the entire TransformED project. If we are to close the attainment gap between the well-off, whose families can afford private tutors and extra support, and those from working-class families who do not have the same privilege, we need to give them equal opportunity in every classroom in every school. The new curriculum and our new approaches will help to close that attainment gap. Those who advocate for the working class, as I do, will support the transformation that we are taking forward. [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): That concludes questions on the statement. I ask Members to take their ease before we move to the next item of business.

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

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has not allocated a time limit for the debate. I call the Minister to open the debate on the Bill.

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

In 2022, the House agreed that we should work together to address the climate crisis. The Climate Change Act (NI) 2022 includes requirements on my Department to develop sectoral action plans for the energy sector and industrial processes. It also set a target of ensuring that at least 80% of electricity consumption comes from renewal sources by 2030.

Over half of greenhouse gas emissions come from energy. It is therefore essential that we find ways of decarbonising the energy sector while creating the right conditions for growth in low-carbon and renewable solutions. Members will be aware that I intend to introduce legislation to deliver a support scheme to incentivise the growth of renewable solutions, but that is just one part of the solution. We need to develop policies and legislation across a wide range of new and emerging technologies that will help us on our decarbonisation journey. Creating the conditions to allow new low-carbon technologies to flourish can support economic opportunity for business growth and job creation and help us to develop a self-sustaining and flexible energy system, reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and freeing us from global energy shocks. To achieve that goal, we must work in partnership, across government, and it is essential that my Department has access to the technical expertise that the Utility Regulator (UR) can provide on that journey.

The Utility Regulator is restricted in its ability to support us because its legislative underpinning has not been updated to reflect the significant change in policy direction that is required to deliver on the Climate Change Act and the Executive's energy strategy. The Bill is the result of collaboration with the Utility Regulator and is designed to empower that organisation as a key delivery partner. The Bill is quite short and states:

developing proposals, policies, strategies or plans relating to the energy sector to support obligations under the Climate Change Act. It also includes a requirement:

That allows for occasions when the regulator may be unable to meet a request from the Department, reflecting the importance of its remaining independent from government but a strategic adviser to government. Access to its technical insight and regulatory advice will allow officials in my Department to design energy policies that will create an environment in which new low-carbon energy solutions can flourish and to develop legislation that will provide the necessary conditions for inward investment and innovation.

My Department held a consultation on the draft Bill, which received 50 responses. Overall, 76% of respondents expressed support for the intent of the Bill, recognising the importance of the regulator in supporting us on our journey.

The Bill is an important step in creating a pathway to decarbonise the energy sector and highlights my Department's commitment to meet the challenge of climate change. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr Brett (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Economy): As Chair of the Committee for the Economy, I support the Bill at Second Stage. This is the fourth Economy Bill that has got as far as Second Stage, and I pay tribute to the Department and the Minister for that. That is probably a record for any Department in this mandate, so fair play to them.

The Department briefed the Committee in 2024 on the proposals in the Bill, and officials briefed the Committee on the Bill again just after Easter of this year. As the Minister indicated, the Utility Regulator needs to be able to support the Department in the development of low-carbon policies, which are essential to the energy sector. It is argued that the Utility Regulator is currently:

legislative changes that have been passed in the House. The Electricity (Northern Ireland) Order 1992 and the Gas (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, which set out the role of the UR, are to be changed, therefore, to allow it to give advice on low-carbon energy solutions in line with the Climate Change Act and the energy strategy. The low-carbon solutions are understood to include offshore renewables, heat policy, hydrogen and systems services and new activities. The Bill deals with the provision of advice on those subjects to only the Department for the Economy. The Department has indicated that, following the passage of the legislation, should other Departments or arm's-length bodies (ALBs) need advice on decarbonisation, it would consider their requests and decide whether to route them through the Utility Regulator.

In evidence to the Committee, the Utility Regulator contrasted its vires with that of Ofgem, indicating that there have been at least 12 Acts to amend Ofgem's statutory powers, including primary legislation on microgeneration, information-gathering, promotion of reduction in carbon emissions, promotion of reduction in home heating costs, consumer redress and complaints-handling. The Utility Regulator also advised that the Energy Act 2023 in Great Britain introduced an amendment to the principal objective of Ofgem, stating that the:

would have to be considered as part of consumers' interests.

Accordingly, as the House is aware, the Single Electricity Market Committee (SEMC) regulates all-island activity that involves the Commission for Regulation of Utilities (CRU), which is the energy regulator for the Republic of Ireland. Among other things, the SEMC also provides advice on climate change plans in Northern Ireland. It is understood, however, that there is no such provision for the Utility Regulator to develop its own plan in that regard. The Minister, in her comments later, can hopefully address why there is that gap in provision.

On behalf of the Committee for the Economy, I am keen for the Minister to clarify why, in the two years since the Committee was first briefed by the Department on the Bill, additional provisions were not developed in line with other fair transition climate change measures, including customer redress, complaints handling and the linkage of consumer interests to decarbonisation.

I believe that the majority of Economy Committee members view the Bill as being an opportunity that could have gone further, but they will support it nonetheless. If the Bill passes its Second Stage today, I expect amendments on what I have outlined to be tabled, and the Committee may then have to come back to the House to seek an extension to the Committee Stage.

I will now make some remarks in my capacity as a DUP MLA. The Minister is right: the Bill is relatively short and tightly scoped, with just two clauses. Given the Utility Regulator's comments to the Committee that it believes that the Bill should have been more expansive, I wonder why that opportunity was not taken in the two years since the Department first briefed the Committee on it.

I ask the Minister to define what is meant by a "reasonable request". Subsection (2) of clause 1 states:

I am keen to get a definition of "reasonable request".

Another reasonable question to ask is this: why does the Bill not allow the Executive as a whole or other Departments individually to take advantage of the expertise that the Utility Regulator clearly has? The Utility Regulator is defined as being the strategic adviser to government, so why are we giving support or information just to the Department for the Economy and not to other Departments? For example, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, which sponsored what is now the Climate Change Act, may want to be included in the legislation. The Bill, which is a tidying-up exercise, is welcome progress. The Committee will engage with the Department, the Utility Regulator and consumers to see whether any changes to the Bill are required.

Ms McLaughlin: It is good to speak for the SDLP on such an important topic. As Members from across the Chamber will appreciate, there could not be a more timely opportunity to speak about energy issues and reaching our net zero objectives. As the price of energy has soared in recent weeks, thanks to the war in Iran, we have seen that, once again, being in hock to and at the mercy of global oil and gas markets costs our consumers and communities here at home dearly. Households across Northern Ireland are facing huge spikes in prices, with the cost of home heating oil rising by around 80% and prices in the all-island wholesale electricity market rising by 19%. We need to accelerate our long-term move to escape that dependency and take control of our own energy. We rapidly need to decarbonise the energy sector, end the use of fossil fuels and promote a market in which renewable energy sources are readily available and affordable and in which much faster progress is achieved on making sure that homes are energy efficient and properly insulated. That is a big task. It is therefore only right and proper that we bring the full weight of every statutory body behind achieving those objectives, and that includes ensuring that the Utility Regulator can properly provide the advice and support that the Executive will need.

The Bill is a critical part of the jigsaw for making sure that the Department can effectively prioritise low-carbon solutions and emerging technology sectors. If we want to develop low-carbon energy policies and meet the commitments that the Assembly has set itself on energy policy and on contributing to addressing the challenges of climate change, we should progress it without delay.

I also put on record that I am disappointed that the Bill does not confer the same powers on other Departments to request advice from the Utility Regulator, as the Chair of the Committee just said. While it is right that DFE is the ministry responsible, other Departments have a critical role to play in ensuring that we reach our climate goals in a fair and sustainable way, and the Utility Regulator could have helped with that. It could also have helped to meet the requirements of article 24 of the 2022 Act, which places responsibility on DFE, alongside other Departments, to ensure that net emissions do not exceed the carbon budgets. I would like to hear from the Minister on how she intends to meet the challenge of joined-up government without such powers.

While the Bill has been presented as being only a first step, it is really quite moderate. My party and I remain concerned that its ambition falls short of the scale of the crisis that we are facing and the size of our ambitions.

The Economy Committee has heard directly from the Utility Regulator that, while the legislative framework for Ofgem has been updated several times, the Energy (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 has not been updated. As recently as last month at the Committee, the Utility Regulator repeated its desire to see Northern Ireland’s energy legislation brought into line with that in Britain and the relevant legislation in the South of Ireland. The Minister must answer why she believes it is appropriate to take such a piecemeal approach to the legislation. I put on record that I welcome where we are at the minute, but I am concerned about the scale and ambition of the legislation. Since we set out on this journey, things have moved way ahead of us, particularly in recent days and months, and we probably now need to consider the context for the Department’s work on energy and the statutory obligations in the Bill. Our economy needs a big change in a range of areas, including energy. Sadly, the Bill will not deliver that.

Of course, there are other outstanding questions, such as the extent of the operation of the Bill's qualified power, and I encourage the Minister to outline how she will safeguard the independence of the Utility Regulator while affording it the powers to provide relevant advice. We also want to see more detail from the Minister about the alternative funding mechanisms that are suggested in the Bill's explanatory memorandum, and we need maximum transparency on what they might look like.

Despite those concerns, we support the Bill's principles at Second Stage. I look forward to progressing the Bill in the Economy Committee and working with colleagues from across the House to explore some of the issues that I have outlined in this important legislation.

Mr Delargy: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Utility Regulator Bill today. I acknowledge the work of the Minister and the officials in the Department for the Economy on bringing the Bill forward. I also acknowledge the role that the Utility Regulator and its team have played through their continuous work and engagement with the Committee on this important piece of legislation.

The Bill is one of eight pieces of legislation that are due to be brought forward by the Minister in a shortened mandate, and it highlights delivery in the Department for the Economy. It is an important Bill, and, as Sinéad mentioned, the timing is right. We are already living through a major change in how we generate, move and use energy. The Utility Regulator has an established role in protecting consumers and securing value for money in the electricity and gas markets, but the system that it regulates is changing and diversifying.

Decarbonisation is a legislative requirement, and these new powers will help the regulator support that transition while maintaining its core duties. Formalising the role of the regulator is pivotal to ensuring that the Minister's economic vision is delivered and is another step in the path towards net zero. In practical terms, the Bill helps the regulator to get ready for that shift. It strengthens the regulator's ability to support the infrastructure and investment that we need for a lower-carbon system and its capacity to support the Department on energy policy. Good policy needs independent expertise, proper evidence and a clear view of what decisions mean for households, businesses and communities. Therefore the Minister has taken a pragmatic approach to ensure strong and independent expert advice in decision-making.

We do not need to look far for a lesson in what happens when oversight is weak. The disastrous RHI scheme, which was presided over by the DUP, damaged the public finances and public trust. Sinn Féin is ensuring that that will never happen again by ensuring robust scrutiny and augmenting the advisory role of the Utility Regulator.

This is a sensible step in the right direction. If we get this transition right, we can cut emissions, build a more resilient energy system and support skilled, good-quality jobs along the way. For those reasons, I am happy to support the Bill. I look forward to seeing it progress through the House.

Mr Honeyford: We have had two pieces of energy legislation in two days. I thank the Minister for bringing this forward. I rise to support the Bill at its Second Stage. Alliance supports its proceeding to Committee Stage. However, I will spend some time to make my remarks, because supporting the Bill moving to the next stage is not the same as endorsing the pace, ambition or vision that has brought us to this point. The Bill has two clauses. We have to be honest about what those are there to do. I will take my time, because energy is too important to have legislation on it rushed through the House.

Europe, collectively, is actively recalibrating towards home-grown energy security. That provides green jobs, skills and opportunities. I met the Canadian high commissioner last week. Canada is in a similar place to us. We need to be, and should be, at the front and centre of the curve for energy security, which reduces costs for households, and not be held hostage to world oil prices. To achieve that, we need a plan that sets out a legislative pathway to delivery. I have talked many times in the House about the economy. It is our role to create the conditions and the platform — the pitch, if you like — for others to play on. We do not deliver any of this — it is the people in business who provide the outworking. We need to provide the platform and pitch for research and development, skills and opportunities to flourish and drive down costs for people and businesses.

Look at what the Bill does. Clause 1(1) states that:

The word "may" is pretty ambiguous. Clause 1(2) states that:

Again, I question that wording and what it means, in practice. That is it; that is the entire Bill.

I draw the Assembly's attention to something that the Department acknowledged at the Committee back in November 2024. Some respondents argued that the Bill was not necessary and that article 12(5)(c) of the Energy (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 already provided the Utility Regulator with adequate cover to give advice to the Department on energy-related obligations in the Climate Change Act. The word "may", in clause 1(1), does not compel anyone to do anything: it does not direct; set targets; give the Utility Regulator any new enforcement powers; or update the regulator's statutory duties, which, as has been said, are decades old. We are, in essence, therefore, legislating for a conversation. Four years on from passing the Climate Change Act, we are legislating for a conversation.

Let us look at the timeline and put it on the record. In December 2021, the energy strategy was published. In June 2022, we had the Climate Change Act, which compelled every Department. I agree with Sinéad and Phillip: this is compelling only one Department. We then had two years of DUP collapse, so nothing happened. Take that as a gap. We returned in February 2024. In May 2024, the Executive agreed the draft Bill to go to public consultation, and that was completed in August 2024. In November 2024, officials briefed the Economy Committee and told us that the intention was to introduce the Bill before the summer recess in 2025. We need clarity on why we are here. It will be May 2026 later this week. Why did that not happen? I am not trying to score points; I am not interested in any of that. I genuinely want to push the transition faster. I am trying to get answers from the Department, because we do not get answers from the Department at Committee. What caused that additional delay? With a 2030 renewable electricity target bearing down on us — it is four years away — we cannot afford to waste time, and, from where I sit, that is exactly what has been happening. Recently, we have seen movement but not in the years before.

When officials briefed the Committee in 2024, they were asked directly whether the Bill should go further. I will quote what was said:

"A range of stuff", in November 2024, was the assurance to the Committee. When pressed on what that range would look like, it was said that the "range of stuff" was:

We are almost 18 months later. I asked that same question last week in Committee. I asked what the next step was, and I am still waiting for an answer. There were words, but there was absolutely no answer about a timetable, a commitment or a plan. They talked about steps but could not tell us what the next step was. That needs to go on the record, because we do not get answers at Committee from the energy section of the Department.

In 2024, I asked the Department directly whether there was a master plan for energy, and the answer was an outright no. We talked about this yesterday in the Chamber. We were told that we are working towards a midterm review of an energy strategy — not a plan but a review of a strategy that is already five years old. That was 18 months ago, and when we are four years — I stress: four years — from an 80% renewable electricity target, we need a plan on how to get there. There is a difference between a review and a decision; a strategy and a plan; a "range of stuff coming forward" and an actual legislative programme. We do not have those. I want to put that in context, because we deserve to have what other jurisdictions have.

In GB, Ofgem was given statutory net zero duties under the Energy Act 2023. There is now an explicit legal obligation to support the Government in meeting their net zero targets. It delivers renewable energy schemes worth more than £10 billion a year and is actively involved in the National Energy System Operator. It is delivering a clean power plan. In the South, the Commission for Regulation of Utilities has a dedicated decarbonisation division. It has developed offshore grid policies, reviewed large energy user connections and actively aligned its regulatory framework with the climate action plan.

Here, John French, our Utility Regulator, has publicly said that he does not have a statutory duty to support the Government in meeting their legal duties on net zero. The Bill will go some way towards that, but it does not come close to what other jurisdictions have. That is the gap. What does the Bill do to close that gap? Very little. It gives the Utility Regulator the permission to give advice if asked. That is the distance between where we are and where Ofgem and the CRU are. I really fear that we are missing out on huge potential and opportunity that will cost every household in their pocket every year into the future. The current framework was not designed for net zero. Even hydrogen does not fall within the definition of "gas" under the Gas (Northern Ireland) Order 1996.The regulator cannot act on hydrogen because the law does not even recognise it. The regulator has identified specific areas where it needs proper legislative cover, but the Bill addresses none of them directly. It simply enables the regulator to talk to the Department about those things without legal risk.

If we are to become energy secure on this island, we must move away from fossil fuels. That requires infrastructural investment, building grid capacity ahead of demand and a stop to reacting to things. It requires regulatory certainty so that businesses can plan. It requires consumer protection so that households can transition. It requires offshore development, interconnections, heat decarbonisation, new technologies and storage units all moving in parallel and all requiring legislative underpinning. It requires smart meters so that consumers can benefit from flexibility in pricing, rather than dispatch rates rising or staying steady with that waste of energy. Rural communities need assurance that areas of environmental sensitivity are given protection. However, we have no timeline, no visibility and no certainty on what is coming forward or whether it is coming forward at all. None of that can happen without a plan: not a strategy document or a mid-term review but an actual master plan with milestones, accountability and a legislative programme attached so that it tells investors, the regulator, the consumers and the Assembly what is coming and when in order to give confidence, certainty and function to what the energy Department delivers.

Energy is at the heart of everything that the Assembly is trying to do. It is central to our economic competitiveness, our cost-of-living crisis and our climate obligations and to working together in sharing this island through the North/South interconnector, the single energy market and the shared ambition for offshore wind. Yet, when we look at the Department for the Economy and what it has delivered over the past decade, we see that it is unbelievably slow, which is really concerning. The Bills that were promised have not appeared. Timetables do not get met. When you ask the same questions two years later, you get the answers that you got two years ago. I do not say that to be difficult. I do not want to be difficult. I want to work for a transition, but I make the point that people whom we represent are paying the consequences for that drift.

We are paying the price for being tied to fossil fuels and world oil and gas prices, literally every week. Yesterday, we heard from Members in the Chamber — they are not here at the minute — who champion Trump's ideology and challenge transition away from oil and gas. They challenge costs, yet they champion oil companies that are making billions of pounds of additional profit. Meanwhile, families here have to heat their homes and go to the BPs of this world to fill their cars, and we do not have a plan from the Department for the Economy to get us off fossil fuels and to make that transition. That is what I want to see. We need a delivery of energy transition, but there seems to be a complete lack of vision coming through from the Department and a culture in that energy section that needs to change.

The Bill is not the programme that we need, but it is a step forward. I acknowledge that, and I support its going to the Committee Stage. However, the Utility Regulator needs real powers, not permission slips. We are running out of time in the mandate. We will work in the Committee to do whatever we can to make sure that the Bill is strengthened to be what the people here need. Energy and the transition is the defining challenge of this generation. We need to get on with delivering it.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Diana Armstrong is our next Member to speak.

Diana, I may have to interrupt your speech, as we will suspend the sitting while the Business Committee meets. With that, go ahead.

Ms D Armstrong: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I will be brief.

I support the Bill's passage at Second Stage and welcome the move towards decarbonisation to meet our statutory obligations. There is no doubt that decarbonisation is urgent and necessary. The Department for the Economy carries significant statutory responsibility under the Climate Change Act, so I acknowledge the intent behind the Bill. However, while I recognise the motivation, I have concerns about how the Bill proposes to proceed. It is a narrowly drafted Bill, containing a single substantive clause, yet it represents a significant shift in the role of the Utility Regulator. The Bill formally extends the regulator's functions to include providing decarbonisation-related advice, information and assistance to the Department for the Economy at the Department's request. Others have spoken of their concerns about the conditions expressed in the proposed legislation.

My concern is not about the expertise. There is no question that the Utility Regulator holds deep, technical knowledge of the energy system, as acknowledged in the Minister's foreword. However, with governance accountability and institutional boundaries, I ask the Minister whether we can expect the regulator to now offer advice to other Departments, such as the Department for Communities on poverty issues, or DAERA, as referenced by others.

The Utility Regulator is and should remain an independent economic regulator. Its core purpose is to protect consumers, ensure value for money and regulate monopoly networks. Drawing it directly in with the preparation of decarbonisation policy risks blurring the lines between independent regulation and Executive policy development. Indeed, the Assembly's Research and Information Service highlights that some consultation respondents raised exactly that point, and it risks pulling the regulator into territory that properly belongs to Ministers and the Department.

There are also unresolved questions about how that qualified power would operate in practice. The regulator must comply with departmental requests as far as reasonably practical, but the Bill does not set out what happens if advice conflicts with the departmental policy direction or if the regulator considers a request inappropriate. That ambiguity is not insignificant.

We must also consider duplication and overlap. The Climate Change Act provides for a just transition commission. The Consumer Council already has a statutory advisory role on energy impact for consumers. The Bill does not clearly explain how potentially conflicting advice would be managed or how those bodies would interact in a joined-up way.

I am particularly concerned about the incremental approach being taken. The Department has been clear that the Bill is only a first step, with further legislation, offshore renewables, hydrogen smart metering and licensing to come, though not in this mandate. We are clearly coming to a point where an energy Bill encompassing policy and interconnectors, offshore renewables, hydrogen and battery storage, as well as others, along with enhanced consumer protection measures such as those that exist in Great Britain, should be in place. That is precisely the problem. Decarbonisation is transformational. It requires a coherent, transparent and accountable energy Bill, setting out governance arrangements, advisory structures and regulatory roles, not piecemeal extensions of powers through narrow stopgap legislation.

There is also the public purse issue. While the explanatory and financial memorandum suggests that costs may be recovered through licence fees, it is clear that alternative funding mechanisms could be required. Ultimately, that raises questions around consumer bills and departmental budgets, issues that deserve full Assembly scrutiny within comprehensive energy legislation.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I know that we are short on time, but it is for those reasons that I urge caution at Second Stage. I call on the Minister to reconsider whether the approach strengthens or complicates energy governance in Northern Ireland.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Diana.

As I mentioned, the Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The debate will continue at 2.45 pm, after Question Time, when the next Member to be called will be Aoife Finnegan.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): Protecting the environment is a priority in the Executive's Programme for Government (PFG). The Executive published their Budget sustainability plan in October 2024. The associated forward work programme is led by my Department and examines improvements in the Budget process, including how to link the Budget to the strategic direction of the PFG, which has associated climate targets.

Under the Climate Change Act 2022, all Departments are required to exercise their functions in a manner that is consistent with achieving emissions targets and carbon budgets as far as possible. As climate action is so far-reaching, it is a consideration in all departmental spending and is not limited to actions that can be funded from additional allocations in what is a very constrained financial environment. Any additional funding bids arising from assessments may be submitted for consideration by the Executive as part of their wider prioritisation and financial planning process.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for his answer. We are under incredible financial pressure, and Departments are being required to prioritise some things over others. Some Departments are spending a lot more than others on their journey to achieve climate policies. Is there or should there be a requirement to isolate that spending and compare it as part of a cost-benefit analysis to ensure that what is being spent does not go towards chasing unattainable targets but actually benefits public services in Northern Ireland?

Mr O'Dowd: All public expenditure should be measured to ensure that it is an efficient and effective use of public funds and delivers the policy intention of the Department and/or the Executive. Spending to tackle climate change is no different. Such expenditure is already built into some Departments' spends, but it brings broader advantages in other areas. For instance, the affordable warmth scheme and the warm healthy homes scheme are primarily intended to tackle fuel poverty and improve health, but they also deliver emissions savings. Given the pressures that families are under at the moment from heating costs et cetera, that expenditure should be encouraged and supported in order to assist families with the rising cost-of-living crisis, but it has the added benefit of tackling climate change.

Ms Finnegan: Minister, how is your Department supporting the climate action plan (CAP)?

Mr O'Dowd: Under the draft CAP, my Department is not sector-led. It plays a central enabling role, providing frameworks and guidance to Departments on how they need to consider climate change in decision-making and procurement processes. We are committed to supporting the delivery of the CAP, as is demonstrated by our inclusion of policies that enable such actions.

Outside of the CAP, we are also leading by example. The Department's 'Climate and Sustainability Action Plan 2025-2026' — the first — was published in May 2025. It sets out 38 actions to fulfil our climate commitments and improve sustainability. An end-of-year progress report and the plan for 2026-27 will be published shortly.

Mr McGlone: Minister, we need to develop a just transition framework not only for our farmers but for our wider rural societies that is progressive and forward-looking and has support. What bid did the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs make to you for that just transition, and what allocation was made by your Department in the draft multi-year Budget?

Mr O'Dowd: Unfortunately, I do not have the figures in front of me, but I am more than happy to share them with the Member in due course.

Mr Gaston: Time and time again in the Chamber, we hear that the net zero ideology reigns supreme over common sense. Minister, do you have any central role in ensuring that common sense is applied to spending in Departments, or is it the case that the dangers and the hamstringing that will limit industry and our economy will not be taken into consideration when it comes to pursuing the zealot net zero fantasy?

Mr O'Dowd: Tackling climate change is a common-sense approach. It is common sense to take on the challenges that we face in relation to extreme weather events, whether that be increased rainfall or more frequent storms, not only in this part of the world but in other parts of the world that are facing real and direct challenges as a result of climate change. Investment in warm homes, for example, is the right way forward to ensure that people's homes are properly insulated and built to a standard that ensures that we use less energy than we did previously. The current cost-of-living crisis and the war in Iran, which has driven up oil and fuel prices, are other examples of why we should do that.

Mr O'Dowd: My Department has taken decisive steps to make public procurement more accessible and supportive of business growth. The public procurement policy statement agreed by the Executive in June 2025 requires Departments, either directly or through its centre of procurement expertise (CoPE), to publish an 18-month procurement pipeline. That gives businesses greater visibility of upcoming opportunities and greater confidence to plan and invest.

Central to that is the operation of eTendersNI, which is the single online portal for advertising public-sector procurement opportunities above £50,000. Used by 147 contracting authorities and more than 35,000 registered suppliers, it provides a single, consistent route for suppliers to access tender opportunities from government Departments, agencies, arm’s-length bodies and the wider public sector. Increasing supplier participation in eTendersNI is a key priority.

On 8 July 2025, Construction and Procurement Delivery (CPD) published a procurement supplier communication strategy in consultation with other centres of procurement expertise, Invest NI, InterTradeIreland and industry and sector representative bodies. The strategy focuses on widening access to procurement, supporting suppliers to tender competitively and encouraging new entrants to the public-sector marketplace. Since the launch, 1,061 new microbusinesses and 159 new voluntary and community organisations have registered on eTendersNI.

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

How will a simplified procurement process help to deliver small, local public-sector contracts, for example, in schools?

Mr O'Dowd: I thank the Member for his question. We have cut red tape for low-value procurement for public bodies, including our schools. Schools can now buy what they need quickly and locally for anything under £50,000 or £65,000 for utilities. There is no more jumping through hoops; they can simply get quotes by email without having to use the eTendersNI system. That removes a major barrier for schools, whose focus, as we know, should be on teaching, not tackling bureaucracy. It also opens the door for more local businesses to work in the public sector. The message is simple: if a school needs a joiner to fix a door or a painter to freshen up a classroom, nothing in procurement policy stops them obtaining a couple of local quotes and getting on with the job.

Mrs Erskine: Following on from that, many small and medium-sized businesses feel pushed out of public procurement opportunities because they are advertised as a multi-project spread. Local businesses watch as contractors travel to an area from 40 miles away. It is exactly the same in infrastructure when it comes to filling in potholes etc. Does the Minister agree that more should be done to award local projects to local contractors and communities in order to create efficiencies and cut down on bigger companies travelling in?

Mr O'Dowd: There are some areas where procurement takes place on a wider geographical spread. Road repairs, for example, are split up into a number of geographical locations. That, in turn, can mean that you get more for your money.

I continue to engage with my officials on how we ensure that the procurement process allows access for small- and medium-sized enterprises. We have been successful to date in ensuring that local organisations and companies get access to it, but I continue to discuss and refine the process to ensure that we improve it.

Mr Carroll: Minister, you may or may not be aware that my TD comrades in Dáil Éireann are trying to introduce legislation to stop trade with Israel. Will you introduce procurement legislation or policy to isolate Israel, which would include but not be limited to not giving public money to organisations that are invested in the apartheid state?

Mr O'Dowd: I recently introduced a procurement policy to the Executive that has the highest standards and examples of international human rights compliance. We have gone as far as and much further than has been the case previously in this state or, indeed, some other places. I will always continue to examine how we can play our part and ensure that we do not work alongside companies that support the genocide in Gaza and elsewhere and that we isolate those in the Israeli state who are conducting that genocide or who continue to support and campaign for it.

Mr McNulty: Minister, without strong central direction, procurement becomes fragmented, inconsistent and reactive instead of being strategic. Will you provide details of the oversight body that is charged with ensuring accountability, accessibility, performance monitoring and proper governance structures?

Mr O'Dowd: We recently underwent a review of procurement to see how we should bring forward new governance models. It is an area that requires constant updating and refreshment. I am studying a report from an expert panel on the way forward to see how we can improve on our governance models and ensure that we have the most up-to-date governance in place and do not have the fragmentation that the Member mentioned. I will take a while to study that report, and I will then make recommendations to my Executive colleagues on the way forward.

Mr Speaker: Mr Butler is not in his place.

Mr O'Dowd: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I intend to answer questions 4 and 8 together.

On 6 January, I published proposals for a multi-year Budget and formally launched a public consultation. The consultation closed on 3 March. Subsequent to that, the Secretary of State wrote to update the funding available, which I laid out in my written ministerial statement to the Assembly on 25 March 2026. In addition, while not reflected in the control totals outlined in the Secretary of State's letter, provision must also be made for the repayment of the £400 million reserve claim. In light of those changes, I brought revised Budget proposals to Executive colleagues for consideration at the Executive meeting on 16 April. It is clear that there is a determination around the Executive table to progress a multi-year Budget. Achieving that ambition will depend on securing adequate funding from Westminster to ensure the sustainability of services and improved outcomes for the people whom we serve.

The proposals that I have brought forward have been developed against the backdrop of an exceptionally constrained financial position. I fully acknowledge that they do not provide the level of funding that Departments have indicated that they require, nor the level of investment in public services that I want to see. I continue to make the case to the British Government that additional support is required. However, notwithstanding the significant pressures that we face, the Executive must seize the opportunity presented by a multi-year Budget. Doing so will provide much-needed certainty, support our long-term planning and enable strategic investment that delivers lasting benefits for our economy, our environment and our society.

Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he tell us the likely consequences for our public services if he fails to reach agreement with the Treasury and secure Executive approval for a draft Budget, and will he tell us the timeline and deadline for all that?

Mr O'Dowd: Without significant and proper investment from the British Government, the consequences for our public services will be severe. We have heard individual Ministers stating their case over the past weeks and months and explaining what will happen to public services if there is no further investment. The consequences are bleak, so there is a responsibility on the Government to step forward. We have set out a very strong case, including referring to the funding above the level of need that Scotland and Wales receive. It is only right and proper that the British Government fairly fund this place in order to allow the Executive to carry out their functions on behalf of the people.

Ms Sheerin: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a fhreagra.

Minister, will you give more detail on the conversations that you have had with the British Government about the multi-year Budget?

Mr O'Dowd: I have ongoing engagement with the Treasury and the Secretary of State in relation to the Budget, including as recently as last week. I have made a very strong case to them about their responsibilities to fund this place properly in order to allow the Executive to carry out their functions and support public services and the economy. I have also referred to the disparity in funding between this place and Scotland and Wales. The fact is that Wales is funded 8% above its level of need and Scotland is funded 20% above its level of need, which equates to £1 billion and £3 billion respectively. I assure you that, if our Executive had access to such funds, we would have a multi-year Budget in place and that, over the next three years, Ministers would be planning for delivery and transformation of public services to ensure that they were delivered in an effective and efficient manner.

Mrs Cameron: The UK Treasury awarded extra money to bodies across the UK to address the significant increase in demand for special educational needs services. The Education Minister has for some time been referring to the pressure that SEN provision is putting on his Department's budget. Will the additional £380 million in Barnett consequentials, given the UK Government's decision to fund SEN, be ring-fenced and applied to the NI Education budget, version 2?

Mr O'Dowd: The Member will be aware that Barnett consequentials are unhypothecated, so how they are applied is a matter for the Executive. It is also worth nothing that the funding came as a result of funding pressures in the delivery of SEN services by English and Welsh councils, which cover those services not only in education but in further education and health. All those Departments will have bids in place to ensure that SEN services are delivered and that the increased demand for them is met. The fact is that we do not have the quantum of funding available to meet all the demands of individual Ministers, so the Executive will have to come to a conclusion on those matters.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, at the Finance Committee in December last year, you told me that you were 10 out of 10 confident that a Budget would be agreed. In January, when you published the draft Budget, you said that it would transform public services. Were you wrong then, or are you wrong now?

Mr O'Dowd: I make no apologies for having been an optimist in December or for being an optimist in the last few days of April. My job as Finance Minister is to bring a draft Budget to the Executive. I have done that. I believe that the draft Budget that I brought forward was the best possible attempt at delivering change with the quantum of funding that we have. I note, however, that, since 6 January — the public consultation closed on 3 March — the SDLP — the official Opposition — has not produced an alternative Budget.

Mr O'Dowd: I am pleased that the Civil Service here has maintained its living wage employer accreditation since achieving it in 2021. This year's living wage increase was implemented from the start of this month, benefiting between 600 and 700 civil servants. I continue to encourage other public-sector employers to consider paying the real living wage through my public-sector pay guidance to address low pay.

In addition, last month, I met Living Wage NI, which provides accreditation for employers here, to discuss how I can support its movement to promote the payment of the real living wage further in the sector. Over and above paying valued staff a fair wage, there are many benefits to being an accredited living wage employer, including better staff recruitment and retention outcomes and increased productivity, with living wage employers often reporting more positive manager-employee relationships. Furthermore, securing accreditation shows a strong public commitment to fair pay by an employer, going beyond the statutory minimums and enhancing their reputation and brand with customers, staff and, in our case, the public. I strongly encourage other employers, in the public and private sectors, to join the accreditation scheme.

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

Today is Workers' Memorial Day, and, this weekend, the trade union movement will celebrate International Workers' Day. The North remains a low-wage economy. Minister, based on what you have just said, how will you seek to prioritise in the coming period the absolute imperative of ensuring that all public-sector organisations commit to becoming living wage employers on a fully accredited basis?

Mr O'Dowd: One of the best strategies to tackle poverty is to have good jobs with good pay, and offering the living wage shows a commitment from the public sector that we are determined to tackle low pay. I encourage others to do so. On my responsibility for public-sector pay guidance, my Department has strongly encouraged other public-sector employees outside the Civil Service to pay the real living wage, and we will continue to do so. I know that a sizable number of staff groups in arm's-length bodies follow Civil Service pay awards. Consequently, those bodies will be paying those staff at least the real living wage, but that may not necessarily have been brought through accreditation and accreditation may not have been sought. I will continue to voice my support for the real living wage, and I encourage the bodies that are paying it to sign up to the accreditation scheme as well.

Mr Harvey: Domiciliary care workers are not within the Northern Ireland Civil Service staffing structure. They are employed by the trusts and deliver most essential healthcare in our communities. They are leaving the profession due to low pay, soaring fuel costs and low morale. Does the Minister agree that more should be done to improve their conditions, as in other public-sector bodies? Will he do anything to encourage that?

Mr O'Dowd: I am on the record as saying that one of the first tasks that Ministers need to do when we agree the multi-year Budget is that we settle public-sector pay awards. We cannot wait until the end of the year or until a crisis moment to support our public-sector workers. One of the awards that needs to be settled is for care workers and others, who remain on the lower pay brackets. We need to ensure that everyone is paid a fair wage, and, as I said, I encourage employers who do not have living wage accreditation to pay the living wage and to sign up to the accreditation scheme.

Mr O'Dowd: The investment fund has provided £178·5 million in support, which has generated a further £179 million in additional investment. That has helped to support around 5,200 jobs and the development of close to 100,000 square metres of employment space. The fund recently provided an £8·1 million loan to support the development of a wind farm near Castlederg. That illustrates the role that the fund can play in the transition towards more renewable energy generation. The fund therefore continues to meet its goals of contributing to economic and social regeneration and supporting the low-carbon economy.

Mr Delargy: I thank the Minister for his answer. Obviously, there are huge benefits from the investment fund. Minister, can you outline any of the specific benefits for Derry?

Mr O'Dowd: Yes. In February, I visited a new aparthotel and hospitality complex in Derry city centre that was supported by the fund. The scheme represents an investment of £5 million in the local economy, which will support around 30 jobs. That was precisely the type of scheme that the fund was set up to support, one that contributes to tourism, jobs and regional balance in economic activity. The fund has also supported Ebrington Hotel in Derry, which has played a key role in the wider generation of the city.

Mr Kingston: Minister, as you have set out, millions of pounds are earned each year from the Northern Ireland Investment Fund, with over £8 million in 2024. Can the Minister clarify how that interest is being managed and whether it is being reinvested to fund public services in Northern Ireland?

Mr O'Dowd: There has been a change to how the Treasury manages the use of financial transactions capital. We will have the net return of that, which allows us to reinvest into the public sector, businesses, wherever it may be, so there will be a churning of that investment throughout the system. We have to continue to engage with our Departments and the business sector to ensure that we are maximising that fund, and, in turn, boosting our economy and public services as much as we can.

Mr O'Dowd: The Back in Business scheme has been extended to 2026-27, and will continue to offer a 50% rate discount for up to two years where a business occupies a long-term vacant property that was previously used for retail from1 April 2024 onwards. The scheme is designed to incentivise the occupation of empty retail units, reduce long-term vacancy and support regeneration of town centres and high streets by encouraging new and expanding businesses to establish themselves in those locations.

Since the scheme was launched in May 2024, 113 businesses have benefited, receiving over £600,000 in rate support, helping to reduce operating costs during the early stages of trading. They include nine businesses from the West Belfast constituency. Applications remain open until 31 March 2027, and I encourage any eligible business that is considering occupying a long-term vacant retail unit to apply for the support available through the scheme.

Mr Baker: I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he outline his next steps in the business growth accelerator policy proposal?

Mr O'Dowd: I outlined in November that I wanted to have a public consultation on that policy proposal. My officials have been developing a consultation paper and have started preliminary engagement with key stakeholders. My intention is for the consultation to commence prior to the summer recess.

When a business decides to expand, that would usually increase the rates liability immediately once the work is completed. That additional rates liability creates more revenue for public services. I recognise, however, that the initial outlay, coupled with the increased rates liability associated with an expansion, can be off-putting for some businesses that are waiting to take those steps. To that end, I want to progress rating policy so that the additional rates liability incurred is staggered. That may mean the difference between a business deciding to expand or deciding not to expand.

Mr Wilson: The Back in Business scheme plays an important role but the lack of strategy in what type of businesses build premises, and ongoing dereliction, still leaves many town centres run down. Does the Minister support the reinstatement of the high street task force?

Mr O'Dowd: My understanding is that the high street task force was under the auspices of TEO, so that question is probably best directed at TEO. I am not sure that I accept that there is a lack of strategy. The scheme is market driven, so the businesses that we want to encourage back into town centres and villages are driven by what they believe the market will deliver or how they can change the market.

Having said that, I visited an interesting business in Ballinascreen recently that created a fitness and well-being spa and sports facility right in the town centre in what used to be a bank. You might imagine that that business does not fit there but it does, and other local businesses have been impressed by the footfall that it has brought into the town. Without the Back in Business scheme, that business would not have been able to do that.

We have to allow businesses to decide what they believe will work in a town centre under the scheme, and to create the momentum. There are many success stories across the board of how the scheme has brought not only a business back to life but supported the businesses around it.

Mr O'Dowd: I welcome the 'Totally Invisible' report and have considered its key findings, which highlight a number of concerns about the experiences of the victims, survivors and children who have been involved in private family law cases. I recently met Connie Egan MLA, alongside representatives from Women's Aid and the NSPCC, to discuss the report and to hear their views directly, and those discussions have helped to inform my understanding of the issues that have been raised.

The report places significant emphasis on issues of court practice, culture and system design and refers to the family court pilot task and finish working group that the Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime is establishing to explore more trauma-informed approaches. To support that cross-departmental work, I have nominated a Department of Finance official to participate in the working group, and my Department will engage constructively with colleagues in the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and other Departments.

Ms Mulholland: Minister, do you agree that, where domestic abuse and coercive control are present, the starting point must be the child — their voice and point of view — and that there should not be an assumption that contact with a parent is always beneficial?

Mr O'Dowd: Yes. The well-being of the child has to be paramount in all those decisions, and I assure the Member that my Department and I will play our part in the ongoing discussions and, where we believe they are required, work our way through policy and legislative changes.

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

Mr O'Dowd: I was in the room, along with around 1,000 other delegates at an all-Ireland party conference. I encourage the Member to follow that pathway and get more involved in all-Ireland politics and end his party's partitionist stance on a lot of matters. It was really refreshing and thrilling to listen to debate and discussions at which TDs, seanadóirí

, MEPs, MPs, MLAs, councillors and activists all came together to discuss a range of international issues and all-Ireland politics. I encourage the Member to follow a similar path.

Matthew continues his solo run in defending the British Government and the NIO over their underfunding of the Executive, public services and the economy here. He stands alone in constantly trying to make the point that it is all the fault of the Executive and the Assembly and that the British Government have done their bit. Let me tell you, Matthew, that the facts and figures do not stack up in favour of your argument. The British Government fund Wales to 8% above its level of need, Scotland to 20% above its level of need and this place to its level of need. If they were to fund us to a similar level of need as they do Wales, we would be getting £1 billion extra. If they were to fund us to the level of need that they do Scotland, we would be getting £3 billion extra. If the British Government had given us that money, Matthew, I assure you that there would be a Budget in place.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, you have, once again, utterly misrepresented everything that I said. I want the British Government to give us more money. I want a fair financial settlement for here. A better settlement for this place is more likely to happen when your party and the DUP act like parties in a grown-up, proper Government and stop squabbling. I am not the one who invited in the British Government to do something called an open-book exercise, which you said would strengthen our argument for funding for public services but has instead turned out to be a farce. Minister, I will ask you this again: given that you said in January of this year that the draft Budget, which you have now apparently disowned, was transformative for public services, when will we have a final Budget?

Mr O'Dowd: You talk about squabbling, but the SDLP is the only party, and I mean the only party, that stands up for the British Government on this point. The DUP, the Alliance Party, the Ulster Unionist Party and Sinn Féin are united on the position that the Executive are being underfunded by the British Government and that, for us to be allowed to achieve our objective of transforming public services, delivering modern public services and supporting our economy, we need a fair and proper funding formula from the British Government. I have listened to you misquoting me on the airwaves on a range of matters, but you are a solo runner on this issue. Rather than running round being a spokesperson for the NIO, come and join the rest of us who have a common cause to ensure that this place is properly funded.

Mr O'Dowd: There has been a degree of envy in the Chamber since our ard-fheis in Belfast at the weekend. Those who hold their party conferences in a telephone box now realise that there are parties with representation across the island of Ireland that have a mandate and a strategy for the way forward.

As Members of the Legislative Assembly, our role is to shape legislation that makes a real difference in people's lives. As I intended, I have brought a number of important pieces of legislation through the Assembly in this mandate. Members will be aware that the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill, which contains provisions to establish a new baby loss certificate scheme, passed its Final Stage in December. Last week, the Assembly progressed the Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill to Committee Stage. That Bill will increase the minimum age of marriage and civil partnership from 16 to 18, which will help to better safeguard our children. Following comprehensive scrutiny by the Finance Committee, the Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill was debated in the Chamber and has advanced to Further Consideration Stage. Finally, I intend to move the Consideration Stage of the Fiscal Council Bill next week.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Minister for outlining his Department's legislative programme. Minister, when I previously asked about the baby loss certificate scheme, you said that people would be able to access the certificates very soon. Will you give us an update on when that access might start, given that families are really looking forward to finally having something to acknowledge the existence — the life and death — of their child?

Mr O'Dowd: It is important legislation, and, again, its delivery showed unity of purpose across the Chamber, which is welcome. The SL1 for the baby loss certificate scheme regulations was forwarded to the Finance Committee on 27 March and will be provided to the Assembly when the Committee has considered it. Should the regulations proceed through the Committee's scrutiny and approval process without delay, we hope that they can be debated by the Assembly in May 2026. If the regulations are agreed, the scheme will become operational in June 2026.

Mr O'Dowd: My procurement officials regularly collaborate with InterTradeIreland and participate in its Go-2-Tender programme. It delivered 10 sessions last year and has commenced delivery of the 17 sessions that are scheduled to be delivered by December this year. My Department's buyers engage with SMEs and microbusinesses through those online workshops to highlight opportunities in, and the accessibility of, the public sector.

Since July 2025, centres of procurement expertise have participated in 23 supplier events to raise awareness of public tender opportunities. A further 26 events are planned for this year.

Mr Delargy: Thank you, Minister. You partially answered my supplementary question about how to better understand the tender opportunities. How exactly does your Department promote them to SMEs?

Mr O'Dowd: As I said earlier in Question Time, the eTendersNI portal is used by 147 contracting authorities and has over 35,000 registered suppliers. It is encouraging to note that eTendersNI figures for the 2025-26 financial year show that the vast majority of public spend here benefits local suppliers. Of the total value of the contracts awarded across the public sector, which was £1·93 billion, 65% went to local suppliers, with 62% going to SMEs. The figures for central government for 2025-26 are equally encouraging, with 65% of contracts, of an overall value of £1·25 billion, being awarded to local suppliers and 62% of the contracts benefiting local SMEs.

Mr O'Dowd: No update is available. There have been back-and-forth communications with the Treasury on questions that it had on submissions that were made by the Department for Communities. My officials have engaged with the Department for Communities, and information has been supplied back and forth.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Minister for his answer. With over £350 million a year being lost through benefit fraud and error, there is huge potential to recoup funds. I urge the Minister to support the Communities Minister and push the UK Treasury on that topic.

What practical steps has the Finance Minister taken to address funding pressures in Northern Ireland himself, rather than just blaming the Brits?

Mr O'Dowd: There is no actual agreement with the British Government for a share of that funding pot. We need to be conscious of that at all times. There is a statement on those matters in 'New Decade, New Approach' (NDNA), I think, although I may be wrong — it may be further back than that. We do not have a firm commitment from the British Government on a percentage or amount of money that will be returned to the Executive through the work that the Member mentioned.

The Member might not have caught up on the latest press conferences by her party leader, DFM and a number of her party's other spokespeople. It is not a case of blaming the Brits; it is a case of ensuring that the British Government, who collect taxes from all the citizens we represent, fund this place fairly. By and large, the response from the British Government has been, "Tax workers, families and small businesses more". Here is the thing, though: workers, families and small businesses here pay their fair share of taxes, and those taxes go to the Treasury. We are not getting a fair return on those taxes from the Treasury.

As I have said on numerous occasions at the Executive table, every Minister has a responsibility to run an efficient and effective Department and ensure that all the public funds that they use are used wisely and deliver real change for the people whom they serve.

Mr O'Dowd: I have had a number of engagements with the Infrastructure Minister about her Department and her bids to the Budget. It is the responsibility of each Minister to run their Department and its policies.

As I said in response to the first listed question of Question Time, the costs of climate change are real and include severe weather events, such as the prolonged rain and the storms that our society has faced. DFI has borne the brunt of those weather events in responding to storms over the past number of years. We have just had the wettest January in over 100 years, which did not help the state of our roads.

Mrs Erskine: Yeah, the costs are real; they are real to each Department. The Minister knows full well that, due to delay, there are increased costs to road projects as a result of inflation. The A5 has been paused, £6·6 million has been handed back from the A4 Enniskillen southern bypass project and the A1 safety measures scheme has been halted. The Audit Office has said that the costs for the A5 are £1·7 billion and counting because of the legal action. Given that Departments are cash-strapped, would it not be better to sort out climate change legislation so that we can stop the pauses to our road infrastructure projects, stop their costs spiralling and get Northern Ireland moving again?

Mr O'Dowd: The Member is aware that the A5 case is before the courts and that there is an ongoing appeal involving the AERA Minister, the Infrastructure Minister and the A5 Enough is Enough campaign. I hope that the appeal is successful and that we then move rapidly to the delivery of all the road schemes to which the Member referred.

Mr O'Dowd: There are assessments by members of staff, when they are available to carry them out. Like other bodies, Land and Property Services (LPS) has a constrained budget and a constrained number of staff, but spot checks can be carried out on request.

Mr K Buchanan: Thank you, Minister. Some towns such as Magherafelt have several new and emerging businesses. On Boxing Day alone, I could have got my hair cut — not that I have much — at two places within a stone's throw of each other. The demand was that great that those businesses were open on Boxing Day, which rings alarm bells. I appreciate that that is not a rating issue, but it is an alarming thing in a town.

What else can you do for businesses, Minister? I appreciate that we have the online world, but what else can you as Finance Minister do to assist those struggling businesses? They see those other businesses — I am not labelling all hairdressing businesses as fraudulent — as sending out a serious signal in a town.

Mr O'Dowd: As I said, if the Member has any concerns, he can contact LPS, and it will carry out due diligence on those matters.

I am supporting businesses. We have just talked about the Back in Business scheme. I want to support businesses by allowing them to physically expand and giving rates relief in the first year of their expansion. In the draft Budget, I have proposed providing £10 million in further support to small businesses. I have also proposed that the finance from some of the domestic rate relief schemes be redirected to supporting our small and medium enterprises. I am always looking for opportunities to support our small and medium enterprises.

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

Before Members take their ease, I welcome to the Chamber today a lot of additional people who are here for the Final Stage of the historic Sign Language Bill. You are all very welcome.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call the Minister for the Economy to wind up the debate on the Bill.

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

First, I thank Members for their consideration. I am encouraged by the support that has been expressed for the Bill in the Chamber today. I acknowledge the other comments that were made, and I will come on to those in a little bit. That reflects the importance of the Bill.

As I outlined when I opened the debate, the Bill will allow the Department to access technical advice that only the Utility Regulator has the information and expertise to provide. It will complement in-house analytical and policy expertise, enabling the development of the proposals, policies, strategies and plans needed to support the Department in delivering the Climate Change Act and energy strategy objectives. By fully empowering the Utility Regulator in the net zero conversation with my Department, my officials can work to design low-carbon energy environments that unlock economic and decarbonisation opportunities.

I will talk to some of the points raised by Members in the debate. Similar comments were made across the Chamber about the scope of the Bill. It is a case of ensuring that the Utility Regulator is in a position to advise the Department on the different elements that will be required to meet our targets, the areas of policy that it will have a role in and what additional powers may be needed at a future date to help it to deliver. At this point, it is a case of giving the Utility Regulator the power to advise and help the Department on the way forward, and, at a later date, we will work with it to develop the additional powers that it also requires. We will continue to do that work. We will work with Utility Regulator on those future powers.

Some comments were made about the wording of the legislation. Members asked why it says "may provide advice" and why it talks about "any reasonable request" from the Department. Diana made comments about ensuring that the Utility Regulator maintains its independence while ensuring that a level of governance is in place; that is the balance that we are trying to strike. As the Utility Regulator is independent of the Department, the Department cannot instruct it on what it should do or the advice that it should provide. The reasonableness is to ensure that, if the regulator is asked to do something that goes beyond what it is resourced to do, it is in a position to make that point.

We often need to speak to the issue of resourcing, and points were made about other Departments asking the Utility Regulator to provide advice. The current functions that are set out in the Bill are intended to be resourced through the electricity and gas licence fees, and it can be used only to resource work associated with the Bill that aligns with the statutory electricity and gas functions. Therefore, if other Departments have asks that sit outwith that, a conversation will need to be had about where the resourcing will come from and the funding to support it.

Those are some of the issues that we have had to strike a balance on in the drafting of the Bill, and I am assured that the Committee will fully scrutinise all elements of the Bill.

I will pick up on a point that was made by Mr Honeyford about the advice and information that comes to the Committee. It is not acceptable to me that the Committee feels that it is not getting the information that it needs, but I am also clear that none of my officials goes to the Committee to be unhelpful. If there is a difference between expectation and what the Committee is getting, we need to ensure that the gap is bridged. The Chair had correspondence from the permanent secretary offering to meet to discuss any issues, and, hopefully, the offer will be taken up so that we can ensure that those issues are resolved.

I hope that I have not missed any of the points that were made. I am conscious that people in the Public Gallery are more anxious to hear another debate. I will begin to wrap up. I am grateful to everyone who contributed to the debate on the Utility Regulator Bill. I ask Members to agree the Bill's Second Stage so that it can be referred to the Economy Committee.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members, take your ease, please.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, before we commence, I extend my welcome, as well as that of the Speaker, to all of those in our Galleries.

I call the Minister for Communities to move the Final Stage of the Sign Language Bill.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

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

Mr Lyons: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am delighted to move the Final Stage of the Northern Ireland Sign Language Bill, and I am grateful for the opportunity to address the Assembly at what is clearly an historic moment.

I am absolutely delighted to welcome the deaf community here. As I look up into the Public Gallery, I can see that the community has turned up in large numbers from near and far to witness what is happening. For many of them, this day has been a long time coming. In my time in the House, I cannot remember so many people being in the Public Gallery for the Final Stage of any legislation. I am delighted at such a strong turnout. It speaks to the importance of the legislation for the community that is represented here today.

I am also delighted that, over the past few weeks, planning for this day has been led by members of the deaf signing community, supported by my officials. I am grateful for their efforts. I also thank Parliament Buildings staff and the British Sign Language (BSL) and Irish Sign Language (ISL) interpreters who have facilitated the signposting and escorting of visitors to the Public Gallery. I also thank the students from the Department for Communities-funded Queen's University MA in sign language interpreting. They have volunteered their services to help with supporting deaf visitors during their visit to Parliament Buildings today. I wish them well with their final dissertations. We are also joined by representatives of the deaf community who have travelled from other jurisdictions. They are very welcome.

This is a day that has been much anticipated by the deaf and deafblind signing community. For them and for the whole of Northern Ireland society, this is a day that truly merits being described as "historic". As Members, we are being asked a simple but significant question: should Northern Ireland formally recognise BSL and ISL and strengthen our commitment to equality, dignity and inclusion for deaf and deafblind signing people? I am confident that the answer from the Assembly today will be an emphatic yes.

To understand why the Bill matters, we must first acknowledge the long experience of deaf people not only in Northern Ireland but across these islands and beyond. For generations, deaf people have built rich linguistic, cultural and social communities through sign language, yet, too often, that history has been marked by exclusion. Legal recognition of sign languages has lagged far beyond the lived reality. At the Bill's Further Consideration Stage, I spoke of the Milan conference in 1880 and how its decisions contributed to deaf children being discouraged from learning and using their own language and deaf people in general being marginalised in employment and civic life — often seen and treated as outsiders and not quite belonging.

Despite those challenges, deaf people persevered. They organised, advocated and passed their languages from one generation to the next. They ensured that their sign languages did not simply survive but flourish.

Those from the deaf community who are gathered here today will know of a central figure in that struggle: Francis Maginn. He was born near Mallow in County Cork in 1861 and spent most of his working life in Belfast until his death in 1918. He advocated on behalf of the deaf community to improve living standards, promote sign language and undo the injustices that flowed from the decisions made in Milan. Maginn was buried in Belfast city cemetery and is remembered in College Square North in Belfast, where an Ulster History Circle blue plaque at Wilton House reads:

I am pleased to have joined other funders, including the Ulster Society for Promoting the Education of the Deaf and the Blind, to support c21 Theatre Company and ensure that its play 'Call to Adventure: The Life and Travels of Francis Maginn' can tour venues across Northern Ireland. I am also pleased that the cast and crew will perform a short excerpt from the play in the Long Gallery after this debate at an event sponsored by me that will, I trust, mark the passing of the Northern Ireland Sign Language Bill. I reiterate my invitation to Members to attend that event.

The passing of the Bill would be a fitting tribute to the life and travels of Francis Maginn, because it delivers on many of the issues that he championed. It recognises BSL and ISL as languages in their own right, not as supports or accommodations but as full languages, with their own grammar, structure and cultural significance. That recognition matters. It sends a clear signal that deaf people and sign language users are valued members of our society. It ensures true equality, respects human rights and aligns Northern Ireland with international good practice. The Bill moves us away from a deficit-based model and one that focuses solely on impairment towards a model that recognises the linguistic identity and, importantly, cultural identity of our deaf and deafblind community.

It has been a privilege for me to lead on this groundbreaking work on behalf of the Executive. Long before the Bill reached the Assembly, my Department was already engaging with the deaf community, its representatives and service providers to understand lived experience and practical need. That work included developing sign language interpreting services across public services; working in partnership with deaf-led organisations to co-design, develop and fund strategic interventions, including the family sign language programme, which is a priority for me and for which the Bill provides a statutory guarantee that classes will remain free of charge; establishing structured engagement through advisory and partnership groups; and improving awareness of sign language across Departments and public bodies.

The Bill builds on that foundation, gives legislative shape to the work that has already begun and provides the clarity and stability that is needed to drive progress in the long term. The Bill is about rectifying a long-standing inequality. It reflects values that, I believe, are shared across the Assembly: fairness, dignity and inclusion. For far too long, that has not been the reality for members of our deaf community, but that ends today. I am therefore proud to have brought the legislation to its Final Stage, and I commend the Bill to the House.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): As Chair of the Committee for Communities, I welcome the opportunity to speak at the Final Stage of the Sign Language Bill. I thank the sign language community for its contribution to the Bill and wish it well going forward. I give my commitment that we will continue to work with it in the time ahead. I say to the community that, based on our experience of the Committee process for the Bill, we see you, we hear you and we will continue to work on your behalf.

As Chair of the Committee, it is, for me, a significant and long-awaited moment for the deaf and deafblind communities, for British Sign Language and Irish Sign Language users and for all who have campaigned tirelessly over many years to see the legislation brought to fruition. I thank the Minister for bringing the Bill to the Assembly today and my colleague Carál Ní Chuilín, who was involved in the earlier stages of the Bill. At previous stages of the Bill's passage, the Committee set out its clear support for the overarching aims and principles of the legislation: to recognise, respect and promote Irish Sign Language and British Sign Language and to address the systemic barriers that are faced by those who rely on them in their daily lives.

The Bill moves beyond disability legislation, recognising that sign language is not just an accessibility tool but a core aspect of your community, culture and linguistic identity. Today, we move from intent to delivery, and that carries both opportunity and responsibility.

The Committee undertook detailed scrutiny of the Bill during Committee Stage. We engaged extensively with stakeholders, including deaf organisations, advocacy groups and deaf and deafblind people. Their contributions were invaluable. They did not simply inform our work; they shaped and strengthened it.

Members will recall that a consistent theme emerging from that evidence was the need for the Bill to be meaningful in practice. Recognition alone, while important, is not sufficient: the legislation must lead to tangible improvements in access to services, information, education and, fundamentally, participation in public life that we all take for granted. The Department's future work on extending any central system outside the public sector will be key to that. Stakeholders raised that consistently with the Committee. The Committee looks forward to seeing each Department's sign language action plan to see how duties will come to life and eagerly awaits further information on enforcement and reasonable steps within the forthcoming guidance. We also look forward to seeing a significant increase in the number of interpreters available to deliver the legislation and the specific actions that will be taken to support and enable the deafblind community.

It is important to reiterate the Committee's expectation that the reporting clause in the Bill be commenced at or within weeks of Royal Assent so that the first report about the effectiveness of the Bill is delivered five years from now and without undue delay.

It was with implementation and effectiveness in mind that the Committee developed proposals for amendments aimed at strengthening the Bill and worked with the Department, which accepted and drafted the amendments and then proposed them at Consideration Stage. The amendments included: raising to 25 the age of young people who can access sign language classes; provisions to enhance accountability; reporting mechanisms; consultation; and the level of Assembly scrutiny that will be applied going forward.

At Further Consideration Stage, the Committee reflected carefully on the Minister's amendments and the assurances that he provided. The process has undoubtedly improved the Bill and clarified its intent. Importantly, it has reinforced the need for robust implementation.

As is often the case at Final Stage, it is right to acknowledge what has been achieved and what remains to be done. The Bill represents a step forward. It is not the final destination, and its success will ultimately be judged not by words on a page but by the lived experience, going forward, of sign language users, including those who are with us here today.

The Committee is particularly mindful of the importance of co-design and ongoing engagement with the deaf community. Implementation must not be done to people; it must be done with them. That principle should guide all future action arising from the legislation.

We also emphasised the importance of adequate resourcing. Duties placed on public bodies must be matched with the capacity to deliver them effectively. Without that, there is a risk that expectations will not be met and confidence may be undermined.

I will take the opportunity to recognise the resilience and determination of the deaf community and the organisations that work on its behalf. Your advocacy has brought us to this point. Many of you have waited for a long time to see your language, culture and identity formally recognised in law. Today's debate is, in many ways, a testament to your persistence.

I acknowledge again the work of my Committee colleagues and the officials and staff right across the Assembly who supported the unique scrutiny of the Bill. Their diligence has contributed to a more informed and constructive legislative process. I also thank the departmental officials who assisted the Committee in that work.

In closing as Chair, the Committee for Communities supports the Final Stage of the Sign Language Bill. We do so with a clear expectation that its provisions will be implemented in a way that delivers real, measurable change. This is an opportunity to build a more inclusive society, one in which sign language users are not marginalised but empowered, not overlooked but recognised and not excluded but fully involved in all aspects of public life. Let us ensure that the legislation is not the end of a journey but the beginning of a meaningful process.

I will now make some brief comments as Sinn Féin spokesperson for communities. From the very beginning, the Bill has belonged to the deaf and deafblind community, and its members should be immensely proud of themselves for what they have achieved. I know that I speak for everyone in the Assembly when I say that we are extremely proud of the role that they all played.

As we sign off on the Bill here today, we should remember the long and difficult road that it took to get here, with many false starts and dashed hopes. However, through sheer grit and determination, not to mention a fair amount of patience, we have arrived at Final Stage. The origins of the Bill go way back to 2015, when my party colleague Carál Ní Chuilín was Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure, and I thank her for getting the ball rolling on the Bill all those years ago.

I touched on some of the provisions of the Bill in my remarks as Chairperson, but I remind Members that, finally, Irish Sign Language and British Sign Language will be officially recognised as languages for the first time. That is a hugely symbolic achievement. The Bill will place a legal duty on the Department for Communities to promote greater use and understanding of BSL and ISL. Visibility of any language is hugely important for its development and growth, and I have found both sign languages that we have dealt with, and sign language across the world, to be beautiful, expressive languages that absolutely must be worthy of value and protection in their own right.

I think of the long history from which you have come, particularly when it comes to oralisation. Those attempts to drive the language underground have failed. It is a momentous day, as we recognise in the Chamber the legal status of the language, as well as the validity of your community and your rights.

I very much welcome the provision of free sign language classes for children and young people up to the age of 25 and their families. I welcome the addition at Consideration Stage of charged classes for adults. Public services should be accessible to everyone on the basis of full equality. The Bill places a duty on the Department to properly consult members of the deaf community in relation to the drafting of guidance and best practice documents and the development of regulations. I thank the Department for working closely with the Committee to strengthen that part of the Bill to ensure that at least two or more groups or individuals are consulted, thus cementing the principle of co-design in the Bill.

A chairde

, at its core, this is an equality Bill. It delivers real and tangible rights to a minority community, members of which have been victims of discrimination for far too long. The Bill will ensure that they are seen, listened to and given the space to reach their full potential and fully engage in our society. I accept that many challenges remain in delivering full equality for the deaf community, and we must continue to do everything that we can to make that a reality, but the passage of the Bill is a huge leap forward in achieving that goal, and that is certainly worth celebrating.

I not only praise but thank the deaf community. Yours has been a story of resilience and resistance, stoicism and solidarity, community and creativity. You have shown us today how we can create a better society and how inclusion, respect and rights can create a better future for us all.

Mr Durkan: Today is a great day for the deaf community and for progress towards a more inclusive society that works for everyone. It represents a truly historic moment for Northern Ireland. We are leading the way as the first jurisdiction on these islands to pass a sign language Bill. The beauty of our Bill is that both British Sign Language and Irish Sign Language are valued, respected and recognised as part of the rich cultural fabric of this place.

Inclusion means access to public services on an equal footing. It is about ensuring that everyone has the opportunity that they need, be that in the classroom, at work or in their interactions with health services or other public services. That begins with the most basic tenet of the human experience: communication. For far too long, the deaf community has had to fight for the basics. Accessibility has been treated as an afterthought rather than a basic right. The Bill is the springboard for changing that, but legislation of its kind does not happen by accident; rather, it is the result of relentless campaigning, engagement and careful drafting. I record my and the SDLP's appreciation of campaigners from and for the deaf community, many of whom are in the Public Gallery. While so many people have played such a part in this, all politics is local, so I pay particular thanks to those who have been so active in the north-west. All of you deserve credit and applause.

I also thank the Minister for Communities for taking a constructive approach to the legislation. The Minister is not renowned for compromising, but he has made constructive compromises along the way in order to strengthen the Bill. I also thank the officials whose hard work has been key in bringing the Bill to its Final Stage.

The Bill will improve lives. I hope that it can mean a better future for deaf children and young people and their families. We know the importance of early access to language and how that will improve outcomes across education, employment, well-being and confidence. Today, however, as the Chair said, is not the finish line; it is the starter's pistol signalling that the race has just begun. We have a responsibility to build on the positive momentum created by the Bill. We must continue to listen, engage and break down barriers wherever they remain.

Today should be a proud day for the Assembly. At a time when politics can often if not always seem divided, the Bill shows what can be achieved when we work together: delivery for all the people whom we represent.

Mr Bradley: Today marks an important and positive step forward for our society as we reach the Final Stage of the Communities Minister's Sign Language Bill. I join others in welcoming our guests in the Public Gallery. As a member of the Committee for Communities, I have had the privilege of being directly involved in the scrutiny and consideration of the legislation. The Committee Chair has demonstrated that he not only talked the talk but walked the walk, and I congratulate him on that. I record my sincere thanks and congratulations to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Committee and fellow Committee members past and present for the significant work that was undertaken to bring the Bill to this stage, as well as to the Committee Clerk and staff for all their hard work.

The Committee engaged extensively with stakeholders and approached its work with diligence and care to ensure that the Bill was robust and responsive to the needs of those whom it was intended to support. It is also important to recognise that the Bill delivers on a clear manifesto commitment by the Democratic Unionist Party. Therefore, I commend my colleague, the Minister for Communities, Gordon Lyons, for introducing the legislation and delivering on that commitment. That demonstrates the importance of following through promises with meaningful action.

The Bill represents real progress in addressing the long-standing gaps faced by those who use sign language as their first language. For too long, individuals in the deaf community have encountered barriers in accessing public services, education and everyday communication. The Bill is a practical and necessary step forward in improving inclusion, recognition and accessibility. While legislation alone cannot resolve every issue, it provides a strong foundation and a clear direction of travel. As we move forward, the focus must now be on effective implementation. The commitments in the Bill must translate into tangible improvements in services, better communication support and enhanced opportunities for sign language users across Northern Ireland.

Today is an important milestone for the BSL and ISL community. It reflects the work that has been done and the progress that is still to be made. The Bill sends a clear and positive message about our commitment to building a more inclusive society. I am happy to support the Bill, and I look forward to the difference that it will make in the years ahead.

Ms K Armstrong: Today is a fantastic day — a fantastic day — for me and for the deaf community. Today, we will agree the Sign Language Bill. Today, Northern Ireland joins everyone else on National BSL Day in celebrating the progress of sign language. "Thank you" to all in the deaf community for your patience. It has been a hard-won battle. Today, you get legislation that will enable public services to deliver in your language. Today and from today forward, you have a lot of work to do — more work to ensure that public services live up to the action plans that you will help to create. You have enabled the Sign Language Bill. This is your victory. Thank you for all your hard work so far.

What will we see in five years' time? In five years, we hope to see every Department with an action plan that sets out how it will provide access to services in sign language when you need them. As we heard in the evidence provided to the Committee, we hope that nobody else will have to attend a health appointment without sign language, go to work and be unable to use sign language or be turned away from an employment support mechanism because there is no sign language there. Today and for the next five years, there is a lot of work to do to make sure that the action plans are right for you as a community.

The process was long in coming, but it was not so long for the Bill. I thank the Minister and his departmental colleagues for their hard work in taking the Sign Language Bill through. I also thank the Assembly. This is the first time that the Assembly has provided such an inclusive consultation period. We provided video links so that people could sign their responses to and thoughts about the Bill to us online. We provided Committee sessions with live interpretation, meaning that we could have a one-to-one discussion with someone in their language as part of our considerations. Those considerations have been reflected in the Bill, and I very much acknowledge the Minister, the Committee and the Assembly for accepting the amendments that were tabled. The amendments were not difficult, because they made the Bill the best that it could be for all of you.

As a member of the deaf community — I am hard of hearing — I do not know at which stage of my life I may have to depend on sign language. The Bill recognises that there will be an opportunity for deaf and deafblind people to access training for the time when they need to depend on sign language as their main form of communication. I welcome that.

Today is a fantastic day. It is a day that you have long waited for. It is a day that Francis Maginn long waited for. It is the day on which we say goodbye to the Milan decision and say in BSL and ISL, "Welcome to Northern Ireland, sign language". Your languages are exactly the same as all other languages. Today is a fantastic day.

Mr Allen: I welcome the Sign Language Bill reaching its Final Stage this afternoon. As has been said, the Bill provides formal recognition for British Sign Language and Irish Sign Language and puts in place a framework to support their greater use and improve accessibility for the deaf community across Northern Ireland. As others have highlighted, it also places duties on the Department for Communities and prescribed organisations to take steps to ensure that information and services are accessible. Like other Members, I acknowledge the work of the Minister, his officials, my Committee colleagues and the Committee staff and wider Assembly teams for their role in supporting the scrutiny and overall progression of the Bill. In particular, I recognise the engagement of the deaf community. Their input and lived experience helped shape the Bill throughout its passage.

As the Bill moves to Royal Assent, the focus must now be on implementation. That includes introducing the necessary regulations alongside guidance and action plans to support consistent delivery in practice. As I have said at previous stages, it is also essential that the Bill's measures are properly resourced and clearly understood so that they also deliver in practice.

This is a positive and important step, and we fully support the Bill.

Ms Ní Chuilín: This is a momentous day. When the legislation was introduced, I said to the Minister that it was probably one of the most important pieces of legislation that this place had done or would ever do. It has given legal status to and recognised a community that has faced discrimination, inequality, othering, a denial of rights and then some. The Bill is therefore hugely important. I thank the Minister. I am sure that he will not mind if I mention in particular Tommy McAuley, who has been involved in the work and received an honour for it. He has been with representatives of the deaf community in trying to get legislation introduced for well over a decade. Credit where it is due.

Sorry, Tommy, but I just had to mention that.

I do not know whether the rest of you heard John and Brian on the radio this morning. I will not go back over what they said, as it is their own experience, but humility and hopefulness came from them this morning, despite the awful discrimination and, indeed, hurt that they, their families and the deaf community faced for decades. They were so thankful and optimistic about the future. I know that there are many others whom I could mention, but I will take the opportunity to thank John, Agnes, Brian and Majella. I worked with Majella when I was in the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, as has every Minister since. I acknowledge the work that all of them have done on behalf of the deaf community.

As we get older, we want to leave things in a better place for those coming behind us. That is done to best effect only through legislation. That is why I mentioned the campaigners. I am sure that they will not mind my referring to them as "stalwarts". I was inspired by what they said this morning. As older people with all that lived experience, they certainly will not give up — I do not think that they know how to — but they may be able to rest easier knowing that, for the first time in their lifetime, we are on the right path.

Sign language is a language. This place has been responsible for bringing forward many languages. It has heard lots of colourful language in the past. As legislators, this is a big day for us, because our job is primarily to make sure that we enact legislation for those who need it the most. I can think of no legislation that any Member, regardless of where they are from and what party they represent, is prouder to stand over.

We cannot go through today without mentioning Francis Maginn. Even in his day, he understood the need to have sign language recognised as a form of communication. What is really important, however, is the free classes that there will be for children, young people and families. I cannot begin to understand what it would be like not to be able to communicate with my loved ones. I think that, if we all start from there and work our way back, we will recognise that that is one of the most essential parts of the legislation in supporting and assisting communication.

The legislation is a good place to start. I know that some concerns were raised about co-production and co-design, but, going by what the Minister, the Committee Chair and every other Member who has spoken have said, this is not the end of that co-production and co-design, nor is it the end of inclusion. There is a generosity of spirit to ensure that we make things as good as we can from here on.

Everyone today has said that this is a really important day. It is a momentous day. We can have lots of descriptions of it, but, to the campaigners and their families, I want to say, "Thank you". Waiting for equality for decades has been horrendous, but I am really proud to know you and to have worked with you all. Again, I thank the officials, the Minister and, indeed, you all for bringing this forward.

Mrs Cameron: I am delighted to speak today on the Final Stage of the Sign Language Bill. It is a historic day. It is an incredibly significant and long-awaited day and one that will be welcomed by the deaf community across Northern Ireland and further afield. I welcome all of you to our Public Gallery. It is great to have you with us and included at this stage. I give a particular shout-out to Rita and Raymond Abernethy, my constituents in South Antrim. We have had very confused conversations for many years, and I hope that those will get easier as time goes on and we see the impact of the legislation as it is rolled out.

This is a really good piece of work, one that reflects sustained engagement and a shared commitment across the House to improve how we recognise and support those who use British Sign Language and Irish Sign Language in their daily life. I thank the DUP Minister for Communities for making it an absolute priority in this term of office. I also thank the Department officials who worked for an incredibly long time on the legislation and worked so well with the entirety of the sector throughout the process, ensuring that co-design took place and that the legislation can indeed be the very best that it can be. I extend my sincere thanks to the deaf community, the representative organisations such as the British Deaf Association (BDA) and the wider stakeholders who have contributed their lived experience, their insight and their expertise in shaping this incredibly important legislation.

For far too long, many deaf people have faced unnecessary barriers when accessing public services, information and opportunities. For those whose first language is BSL or ISL, that experience is too often dependent on workarounds rather than being built into a system from the outset. The Bill begins to change that. It places a clear expectation on public authorities to plan for and deliver improved access, and it does so in a way that is practical and proportionate. Importantly, the Bill also recognises that sign language is not simply a tool for communication; it is a part of a distinct culture and identity, and we celebrate that. That has to be understood and respected by all of us. By recognising BSL and ISL in this way, we send a clear message that the deaf community is valued as integral to the fabric of our society, not as an afterthought or an add-on.

The focus now must turn to delivery, and the legislation provides a strong foundation, but its success will be measured by what follows. We need to see tangible improvements in access to public information, greater availability of services in sign language and continued progress across areas such as education, healthcare and justice. Early access to sign language for deaf children and their families will also be key to improving long-term outcomes and ensuring that no one is disadvantaged from the very start of life. Above all, delivery must remain informed by those with lived experience. Ongoing engagement with the deaf community will be essential if we are to get this right. At the Bill's previous stages, I raised the issue of the importance of guidance, which is under development. That guidance will be vital in guiding public services as we move to implement the legislation.

I put on record my thanks to the Committee Clerk and her team. I came to the Committee for Communities late in the day. A huge amount of work has been done, not just by Committee staff but by many members of staff who have been incredibly accommodating in ensuring that every voice has been heard during the scrutiny of the legislation. That was no mean feat, and we thank everyone who was involved in making the scrutiny as good as it could possibly be.

This is a great day. It is a day that will mean a positive step forward. It is about fairness, inclusion and respect. It is about recognising the importance of language and ensuring that people are not excluded because of it. I have great pleasure in supporting the Bill, and I look forward to seeing the difference that it will make in the many years ahead.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, this is Julie Middleton's first opportunity to speak as a private Member, so I remind the Assembly that it is the convention that a Member's inaugural speech be made without interruption. I call Julie Middleton.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mrs Middleton: Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to deliver my maiden speech today. As a new MLA, I am mindful of the service that I owe to every person in Foyle. I am committed to acting as a dedicated champion for the city and district in which I was born and bred. I am here to ensure that the voices of the people of Foyle are heard clearly and that legislation, such as that being debated today, reflects real need.

I stand here as a proud daughter of the Waterside. I was raised in a housing estate called Nelson Drive by hard-working parents who taught me the value of a day's work and the importance of community. In Nelson Drive, we did not just live next to each other; we looked out for each other. To my neighbours, who were a strong part of my upbringing, I want you to know that you instilled community values in me, and I will endeavour to restore community pride for all of you by championing the projects that matter most to you.

Today, I will focus largely on communication. In a place often defined by its political rhetoric, we can sometimes forget that true communication is about not just the volume of our voices but the depth of our listening. My understanding of that was profoundly shaped during my time working for Foyle Down Syndrome Trust, where I got to work with the most incredible children and young people. I learned more about communication from those members than I ever learned from any book, political manual or in any other workplace. I will bring what I learned there to the Chamber today and every day.

To communicate effectively is to be honest about the challenges that we face. My focus will always be on honesty, integrity and hard work. I am focused on priorities that truly matter to constituents such as the need for urgent action on access to GP and NHS appointments. You should not have to call your doctor's surgery 100 times in the morning, only to get through to be told that there is no appointment. Equally, you should not have to drive miles and miles to get to the nearest NHS dentist. There is work to be done. I am not about just words; I am here to play my part.

In Foyle, we have a profound need for a dedicated detox centre, and, like much of Northern Ireland, enhanced access to mental health support.

I am committed to working with all to help members of our communities with issues that go above and beyond political loyalties. Like many in the Chamber, I am also committed deeply to the issue of road safety. I will be lobbying for our local Department for Infrastructure teams to be properly and adequately financed. We must ensure that the roads are vehicle-worthy. The roads must be safe for every family, road user and pedestrian. We must not continue to lose lives on our roads. That is preventable, and it is well within our remit to put precautionary methods and measures in place.

Sadly, in Foyle, fuel poverty and socio-economic deprivation bite hard. We have a moral and ethical duty to urgently help to ease the burden on our hard-working and vulnerable residents. I know that the DUP Ministers and colleagues that I work alongside work tirelessly to find resolve. We are listening, and we will do all that we can to help you.

I am also acutely aware of the challenges that those with special educational needs and disabilities face, due to years of work experience in the field. I will continue to raise their plea and enable opportunities for those individuals and their support networks. I will speak about your challenges and successes and, importantly, with your help I will explain what you need to help you better integrate into work and independent living so that you can have ownership over your journey through school, life and work.

This Chamber also needs to be a voice for those who are escaping and enduring domestic violence and abuse. We must all continue to advocate for tougher sentencing and better protection. Importantly, we must come together to ensure that we bring Jade's law into our legal framework. For too long, silence has been the shield of the abuser. I will use my voice to shatter that silence. I will meet with support groups, ask the difficult questions and do my part to ensure that our laws protect those most at risk.

Foyle is a place of immense talent, yet we face systemic challenges. I am here to help drive socio-economic development, ensuring that our infrastructure and opportunities match the ambition of our people. My focus is so clear: I want to ensure that our talent, youth and people of all ages do not have to leave the north-west or Northern Ireland to find opportunity.

I cannot speak of the strength of Foyle without mentioning our churches. They are more than just buildings. They are social and spiritual anchors for my constituency. From providing pastoral care to running food banks and youth clubs, our faith communities communicate much of the very best of Northern Ireland.

It would be remiss of me not to mention the difficult topic of legacy. There is much conversation and much work that must be carried out, but, ultimately, truth matters, and we cannot stand by and watch history being rewritten or victims' stories being stamped out. I intend to use this platform to speak up, meet with groups and individuals who work with our victims to ask those difficult questions of our Departments, and ensure that our legislation provides the protection and dignity that victims deserve.

I must be very candid. Stepping into public life as a new female MLA has brought challenges that go beyond the policy debates of this House. Sadly, I am certain that I am not the only female MLA in this Chamber, irrespective of political party, who faces harassment on a daily basis, always from people who are hidden behind a screen. While, like you, I welcome scrutiny and open conversation, which we know to be the lifeblood of our democracy, the level of abuse that I have had to delete from my platforms suggests that some are not yet ready for female leadership. However, let me be clear: I will not be silenced. I have, however, been vastly encouraged by many people in this Chamber and outside it, and by the real-life communication that I have received since coming to Stormont: the letters, handshakes, hugs, comments, messages and conversations with people, young and old, who genuinely want to see Northern Ireland work. I am here to work. I will speak up fearlessly for the north-west, meet with every group that seeks to better our community and contribute to legislation that makes life fairer for the people of Foyle. I want to see Foyle thrive. I am ready to work alongside all of you to legislate and to lead. I am ready to listen and, above all, I am ready to serve.

I am proud of my Ulster-Scots heritage and believe that, by celebrating our diverse cultural expressions, we build a more confident and inclusive society. In that spirit of inclusion, I express my full support for the Sign Language Bill, brought through to its Final Stage today by my colleague Gordon Lyons. This is a landmark moment for the deaf community: it is when we ensure that your primary language is recognised and respected in law. Today is the day when we see dignity, inclusion and equality and we will recognise the language and communication that is used by you, our deaf and deafblind community members. I am in awe of the well-established linguistic, cultural and social communities that have been built through sign language. I am thankful that our Communities Minister will bring the law up to date to support and recognise those who are from the deaf and deafblind community.

Today, we see British Sign Language and Irish Sign Language as languages in their own right, and I am so thankful to be here today as that happens. To all in the Public Gallery who are from the deaf and deafblind community, I say this: I commend you for your determination. This is your day: congratulations.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Julie, I am sure that I speak for all Members when I thank you for that speech and extend to you every good wish for the future.

I call the Minister for Communities to conclude the Final Stage debate.

Mr Lyons: I thank all the Members who contributed to the debate. I listened carefully, as I have throughout the progress of the Bill, to the points that they raised. I thank the Committee for its work. Mr Gildernew spoke on behalf of the Committee. I commend him: I know that he has taken classes in sign language and that he has been doing very well.

Mr Lyons: I know that because, after he spoke, my colleague Mr Brett leaned over and said, "He's far better than you". [Laughter.]

As we all know, Mr Brett is always worth listening to, and he always tells the truth, so I have to accept that. That is what this is about: showing that, as legislators, we understand and want to be part of it. I hope that you will forgive us if our sign language has not been up to scratch. It is our way of demonstrating our commitment to you.

I thank the other Members who spoke. I note Mr Durkan's comment in particular. He said that I do not normally compromise. I am more than happy to compromise when someone else has a good idea; it just so happens that, Mr Durkan, most of the time, my ideas are a little better. I say that in good humour. I welcomed the opportunity to work with him and other members of the Committee to get the legislation to this stage today. That is positive.

I know that many people in the Public Gallery are here for the first time. It has been a very positive day. We have all been in agreement with one another; we have all got on with one another; and the mood here has been very good. That does not always happen, by the way. Maybe it is your presence that has changed that; maybe you should come along more often. We have all got on, and we agree today, because we have the same ambition and goal: to make sure that your languages are recognised and that you have equal access to services.

I am absolutely delighted to have brought the legislation forward and make a winding-up speech in the debate today. The Bill has benefited greatly from the scrutiny that it has received, not just in the Chamber but at Committee Stage and in engagement with the deaf community and other key stakeholders. That engagement has strengthened the Bill and, I believe, ensured that it more clearly reflects, in both its spirit and its practical requirements, recognition of and support for deaf sign language users in Northern Ireland.

I welcome the Committee's positive scrutiny and its approach to meeting the needs of the deaf community throughout its evidence sessions online and in person. I am pleased that my Department, through its support for the local deaf organisation Hands That Talk, played a part in the preparation for that process.

That approach should be held up as an example of how legislation should be developed.

I thank the Committee and, of course, the Committee Clerk and her team. The Bill has been refined as it has progressed through the House, and that has involved considerable effort. I therefore thank, again, the Bill Clerk and her staff and the Office of the Legislative Counsel, particularly the First Legislative Counsel, who worked closely with my officials. It would be entirely remiss of me not to fulsomely acknowledge the part that my officials have played — some of them for well over a decade — through their work to support the deaf community, listening to them to understand their needs and shaping the legislation and supporting its passage in order to meet those needs. Their work will continue in the form of regulations, guidance and implementation. Quite simply, the Bill would not have been possible without their perseverance and hard work.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I know that it is not in order for me to single out anybody in the Public Gallery or the Officials' Box, but I hope that you will allow me to break the rule on this occasion, because I want to single out Tommy McAuley, who is in the Box, as he has been at every stage of the legislation.

He has been in front of the Committee many times, and he has also been the face of Department for the deaf community for many years. He has been awarded an MBE for his work. Thank you, Tommy, on behalf of everyone in the Chamber and the Public Gallery. What we have today would not have been possible without your many years of work.

The purpose of the Bill is clear. It is to provide formal recognition of British Sign Language and Irish Sign Language and to place duties on public bodies that will lead to improved access, fairness and inclusion for deaf people across our society. The Bill has dignity, equality and participation at its heart. Members have rightly emphasised the importance of having clarity around public bodies' responsibilities, and I can reassure the House that my Department is committed to providing leadership on that. The statutory guidance that will follow the legislation is being developed in close consultation with the deaf community and other Departments to ensure that it is practical, proportionate and focused on improving real-world outcomes. That guidance will also be consulted on.

By improving access to public information and services, we are not creating special treatment but are removing obstacles that should never have existed in the first place. I am particularly encouraged by the emphasis that there has been, throughout the process, on partnership. The success of the Bill will not rest with one Department; it will require cooperation across the Executive, engagement with public bodies and, most importantly, ongoing dialogue with those who use sign language in their daily lives. The Bill is grounded in the lived experience, leadership and advocacy of the deaf community in Northern Ireland. It reflects not a single moment but a long continuum of effort.

We are joined, in the Public Gallery, by members of the deaf community, and many of them have campaigned for this moment through the years. They have lobbied, petitioned for and requested the rights that the Bill will bring. As I mentioned in the Chamber last week, they have shown remarkable patience, and I know that, at times, they have despaired. They have, however, shown leadership in their community and continued their campaign for recognition. I sense that they are standing on the shoulders of giants, past and present. The individuals who are here today represent many deaf people from throughout the years whose contributions were never recorded. Their leadership, formal and informal, kept sign language alive through decades of exclusion, which has been leading up to this moment: the realisation of the Northern Ireland Sign Language Bill.

I am sure that I speak for the House when I say to the deaf and deafblind community that we acknowledge, respect and have learnt from your deaf history. We have responded to your day-to-day experience in order to inform the legislation and its goal that future generations do not inherit past barriers.

As we look ahead to implementation, I want to be clear that the Bill is not the end of the journey. It is a significant step forward, but it is also a foundation. My Department will continue to work with colleagues across government and with stakeholders to ensure that recognition of sign language translates into lasting, positive change. I trust that it goes without saying that my officials will continue to work with the deaf and deafblind community to ensure that the legislation works for them. I would not have it any other way.

The Bill has enjoyed strong cross-party support at every stage, and the Assembly can be proud of that. I again recognise and acknowledge the speeches that were delivered today. I take the opportunity to congratulate Julie Middleton on her fantastic maiden speech. Julie had an extraordinary privilege today, in that she got to speak without being interrupted. [Laughter.]

I assure her that that is the only time that it will be allowed to happen. I hope that she enjoyed the experience, because it is now over and gone. I appreciate her comments about the legislation that we are passing today, which reflects a shared commitment to inclusion and equality and recognises that a modern, respectful society must value and support the deaf community.

When I introduced the Bill, I was presented with a copy of a booklet called 'The Long Road to Recognition' by its authors John Carberry and Brian Symington. The booklet takes us on a journey through time, signposting key events in deaf history along the way but not all the way to the legal recognition of BSL and ISL. The authors have been driven by their desire to complete the booklet. The final chapter of 'The Long Road to Recognition' has remained unwritten: until today. To all Members, I say this: we are very fortunate, because we are the legislators who have the "power in our hands", if I may borrow the title of the BDA documentary, to change deaf history. We have a duty to be part of the final journey for deaf history in Northern Ireland and help write that final chapter in the story of recognition.

We have a duty to the current generation of deaf and deafblind people and a duty to future generations of the deaf and deafblind community, and that duty is to vote proudly for the long-awaited statutory recognition of British Sign Language and Irish Sign Language: the end of the long road to recognition.

Finally, to the deaf community, I say this: today is your day. Let's go. I commend the Bill to the House.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Enjoy the moment. There is a little bit more to come. [Laughter.]

The Sign Language Bill has passed its Final Stage.

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

Mrs Dodds: I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Diane. The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. As an amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate.

Diane, please open the debate on the motion.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you. Minister, National Health Service dentistry faces an existential threat. Northern Ireland has seen the most rapid decline of health service dentistry anywhere in the United Kingdom. Registration with an NHS dentist has plummeted to the lowest level in a generation. It has dropped by 17% over the past year and by 389,000 individuals since early 2023. Only half of Northern Ireland's population — fewer than one million people — are registered with an NHS dentist, yet over two million are registered with a GP. In my Upper Bann constituency, we had the highest level of lapsed registrations anywhere in Northern Ireland in 2024-25. In one year, a staggering 33,923 registrations were closed due to those patients not being seen within a 24-month period. A colossal number of people in my constituency now have no dental check-ups or access to oral healthcare.

The number of treatments in December 2025 was 40% lower than in 2018, and, in 2023, the adult oral health survey found an increased level of dental cavities compared with the previous survey in 2009. Last February, the British Dental Association (BDA) referenced the risk of turning to Victorian-era solutions and highlighted reports of DIY dentistry, with people pulling their own teeth and needing emergency surgery due to untreated dental infections. Minister, I hesitate to say this, but I can think of no other way of describing it: that is a shameful situation that will have huge repercussions for many years to come.

No doubt, Minister, you will reference the recent allocation of £8 million to the service. I would be grateful if you could confirm that that money became available because of an underspend in the allocation due to the lack of NHS dental activity. The allocation is welcome, but it will not address the fundamental issue. It is not sufficient, and it will not stabilise a service that is crumbling around us, with significant impacts on families and communities.

We need to see published without delay and in full the cost-of-service review led by Professor Ciaran O'Neill. It was commissioned in December 2024. The findings of that review should form the basis for early engagement with the profession on realistic remuneration for dental care and procedures. With barely a year remaining of the Assembly mandate, the focus must be on making substantial progress. A failure to prioritise dental care will ensure that the service will become totally unviable, and there will be huge ramifications. Sadly, there is a COVID generation of children who have no experience of attending a dentist and who will eventually present with exacerbated dental decay.

Northern Ireland's dentists want an NHS service that works for all. However, data published last month shows that NHS work is falling more rapidly here in Northern Ireland than in other parts of the United Kingdom. The proportion of dentists spending more than 75% of their time in the NHS is 59% in Scotland and 45% in Wales, but in Northern Ireland it is only 39%. Northern Ireland invests less in dental services per head of population than other parts of the United Kingdom. In 2003-04, government spend on dentistry per capita was £52 in Northern Ireland compared with £56 in Wales and £67 in Scotland.

Northern Ireland's dentists earn considerably less than their colleagues in other parts of the United Kingdom — on average, 10% less than their English counterparts and 17% less when compared with Scotland. Of course, as with GPs and other services, that erosion of take-home pay has been exacerbated by the National Insurance rises put in by Rachel Reeves in the October 2024 Budget. In many circumstances, dentists are effectively losing money by treating health service patients and are having to make up that shortfall by treating private patients. The system disincentivises practices from taking on NHS patients, particularly those with complex needs. There is a focus on individual units of activity like filling teeth rather than a more holistic approach to preventing poor oral healthcare. There needs to be a complete overhaul of the current payment model. Minister, this House needs to ask today: are you convinced that the current model for dentistry is viable? We want to hear the answer in your response. Many dentists would not choose to turn their back on the NHS, but they feel that they are being driven out by an unworkable system. Consequently, hard-working families are not able to access an NHS dentist and may not be able to afford the bills for the alternatives.

Again, Minister, I know that you are deeply concerned about health inequalities, and the health inequalities annual report, published on 25 March, demonstrated that, in 2024-25, the rate of dental extractions in the most deprived areas was still more than double that in the least deprived areas. The standardised dental filling rate in the most deprived areas of Northern Ireland was 37,738 per 100,000, compared with just over 24,000 in the least deprived areas. Being registered with a dentist is more likely in wealthier areas. The standardised dental registration rate is 51,000 per 100,000 in the most deprived areas but higher, at at least 52,000, in the least deprived areas. That is not a situation that we can continue with, and that unevenness in access to dental care is leading to young people being put in the most difficult positions, with families barely able to afford dental healthcare. We need to reverse the trend, particularly when it comes to health inequalities.

What is being done in Northern Ireland does not compare favourably with actions that are being taken in England, where there is an expansion of dental places, with 50 more dentists trained every year. Many more dentists from overseas are being fast-tracked into the system so that England will have even more dentists by 2028-29, and patients are benefiting from millions more dental appointments, as new figures show that 1·8 million additional dental treatments have been provided in England in just the last seven months. In Wales, a new NHS dental contract based on need and risk has come into effect this month.

Minister, I have presented a picture of a key National Health Service service that is in the most extreme of circumstances. There is no time to wait. There is a great deal to be done. The cost-of-service review is a key step, and rapid progress is required in the weeks and months ahead to get dentistry back on a more stable and sustainable footing in Northern Ireland.

Finally, Minister, I have spoken to many people in the profession and even more who come into my constituency office. Many fear that you are simply running down the clock on the issue. I urge you that making progress before the end of the mandate is a must. I trust that your response will be encouraging to thousands of families and young children in Northern Ireland who have no NHS dentist and find it very difficult to access appropriate dental health services. So many deserve so much better.

Miss McAllister: I beg to move the following amendment:

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Nuala. You have 10 minutes to propose the amendment and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes. Nuala, please open the debate on the amendment. Thank you.

Miss McAllister: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. First, I thank the Members who tabled the motion. Our amendment is intended to add to the calls — not to take anything away — for urgent dental payment reform and to address barriers to access through an oral health strategy, including a plan needed to address the workforce challenges.

Mrs Dodds: I thank the Member for giving way. I omitted to say that we will support the amendment.

Miss McAllister: I thank the proposer for that. It is important that, when we all agree on issues, we work together to progress them. I agree with the Member that we need to see progress before the end of the mandate.

I am sure that many Members, like the many constituents who come to my door and the door of others, do not believe that an NHS dental service exists any more, because they do not see it. They do not see it in the working-class communities, and they do not see it outside working-class communities, because it is so hard to get those who are not registered registered. When those who are registered need an appointment to see a dentist, they cannot always get one in good time because dentists are under so much pressure and are overwhelmed.

Members will be aware that we had a similar discussion, a couple of weeks ago, specifically regarding NHS dentistry in North Belfast. Following that Adjournment debate, the Minister announced £8 million in funding for dental services in this financial year. Importantly, the Member who spoke previously, asked for a breakdown of that money to see where it is going and how it will be spent, if it is spent. I will do so again. Whilst any additional funding must absolutely be welcomed, I share the concerns of the BDA that that alone is not enough. Many of those measures must be caveated, given the sector's previous experiences of the delivery of funding. The six additional dental foundation training places are a positive development. It may not be enough to meet our needs, but we must welcome the addition. However, I would welcome clarity from the Minister on whether that was done with the intention of those places continuing in the coming years and whether we can possibly build on that.

One of the issues that the Member who spoke previously also touched on was the fast-tracking of overseas dentists in England and Wales. Here, in Northern Ireland, those who trained overseas are finding it really difficult, waiting five years plus. I assumed that there was a system right across the UK to get registered as a dentist to practise in Northern Ireland, given that we have such difficulties in getting dentists to register with the NHS. Perhaps the Minister could take on that issue before the end of this mandate as well and resume negotiations or correspondence with the GMC — I believe that it is the GMC, but I might be wrong on that — to see whether we can fast-track registrations or even halve the time or take a year off. Five years is a very long time for someone, given that they have undertaken all the professional development in their own country. I will leave that one with the Minister. I do not expect an answer today, as I appreciate that I have just raised it.

I also welcome the targeted intervention in the Western Health and Social Care Trust. It is a show of good faith regarding the need to address specific challenges in rural areas and certain geographical barriers to access.

It is important that we see the outcome of that targeted intervention and build on it, especially in our rural communities. It is easier for me living in an urban constituency, but many Members from rural areas have spoken of particular delays and issues.

The continuation of the enhanced child examination scheme is another example, which I welcome. However, the reality is that it does not address the issue of registrations. It registers children with a dentist, but they are not registered with a practice. I do not know whether the Minister will remember, but during the Adjournment debate a couple of weeks ago, I raised the issue of how I have registered me and my nine-year-old with a dentist but I cannot register my seven-year-old, and that is in an urban area in Northern Ireland. We are in a lucky position where we can pay higher fees to someone who is not an NHS dentist, but all children should have access to an NHS dentist free of charge.

The continuation of the 30% enhancement to fees for priority treatments was part of the reason why the BDA could not commend the investment to its profession last year, so continuing that without change is questionable at best.

The Minister will know that I keep coming back to the activity enhancement payment. I raised it in an Adjournment debate, in correspondence and in questions for written answer. Although the rise from £1·6 million in the last financial year to £2 million for the current year is positive, we need to get clarity on whether it has been distributed.

As I said, I have submitted many questions for written answer, and I hope that we will get answers here today. That lack of clarity, combined with the fact that half the funding allocated to mitigate rising health-related National Insurance contributions is yet to be allocated, raises questions and a complete understanding of why the BDA cannot commend any additional investment when there are questions around whether it will be spent.

I appreciate that the Minister faces many challenges, given the proposed Executive Budget, but, with regard to the two points that I previously raised, where money has been allocated, we are not seeing it being spent in a way that will tackle the barriers to accessing an NHS dentist. We hear a lot about shifting left, reducing inequalities and reducing pressure. We have to take into account the fact that, because you cannot access a dentist, especially as a young child, it does not mean that you will never go to a hospital, because we are seeing more children who have poor oral health ending up needing inpatient care to receive treatment. Therefore, it has an impact on inpatient care, too.

It is important to ensure that education plays a key role in dentistry care. I was glad to hear the Minister in the Adjournment debate outline the additional practices that are taking place in primary schools, but we need to get that information into the home as well so that parents and those who look after our young people, and the young people themselves, understand what it means to have good oral hygiene. That should be part of an oral health strategy, and the profession could feed into that. There are workforce issues, but it is about educating the public.

We need to stabilise the service. We need to get more dentists registered in the NHS, but, ultimately, we need to be able to pay dentists for the service that they carry out. If you are paying a dentist £10 for a procedure that costs £20, what sort of way is that to do business? If there was any sort of investment in any business here in Northern Ireland, whether it is a coffee shop, hospitality or retail, we would not ask them to pay more just to exist, but that is what we are asking of dentists. It is not supposed to be a business; it is supposed to be free healthcare.

If we want to move on and ensure that we keep NHS dentistry, we need to stabilise that service and invest in it for the future.

Mr McGuigan: There is absolutely no doubt that, in recent years, an increasing number of patients have struggled to access NHS dentistry services here in the North, as more dental practices are moving towards privatisation due to a lack of investment and rising costs across the sector. Constituents contact my office and me about that issue regularly, as do representatives of the dental profession, who have been very clear that, unless meaningful action is taken soon, more dentists will inevitably leave the NHS. The crisis in NHS dentistry will then deepen further and have more of an impact on citizens in the North.

I thank the Members who tabled the motion. We will support the motion and the amendment. The motion highlights the fact that "only 50%" of the population of the North is now registered to receive NHS dental care. That statistic should cause us great concern. The motion also draws attention to the growing problem:

In my North Antrim constituency, the scale of the issue is stark. During 2024-25, 23,865 registrations lapsed. There were also 2,500 deregistrations. Those figures represent individuals who have effectively fallen out of the system. The fact that we are seeing such numbers in a single constituency, with people losing their NHS dental registration within one year, suggests that it is a matter not simply of missed appointments but of significant and persistent barriers to care. Those barriers include transport difficulties in rural constituencies, the cost of travelling to the nearest NHS dentist, ill health or caring responsibilities on the day of an appointment and the reduced availability of NHS appointments as more practices scale back or withdraw from the system, resulting in patients being unable to attend within the required time frame. When tens of thousands of patients' registrations lapse, however, we must be honest and say that it is not a failure of patients to attend but, rather, a failure of a system that cannot provide appointments within the time required in order for them to remain registered. We must also recognise the growing number of people who have never been able to secure NHS dental registration. For them, the barriers to accessing care are even more pronounced.

The importance of dental care cannot be overstated. Oral health is closely linked to wider general health, with well-documented associations with heart disease, diabetes, respiratory illnesses and complications in pregnancy. When people cannot access routine check-ups or preventative treatment, minor issues escalate to serious conditions that place additional pressure on the wider health service.

We know that further losses of NHS dental practices will have a disproportionate impact on those on lower incomes and on children. They may then go without regular check-ups and preventative care for many years. An entitlement to free dental treatment is meaningless if people cannot find an NHS dentist with the capacity to treat them. Our public health service was created to reduce health inequalities, yet we are witnessing a widening of those inequalities across the board. With private health care becoming increasingly evident, nowhere is that shift more visible than in dentistry. Access to dental care cannot be based on someone's ability to pay, so we must speak with one voice to ensure that it does not.

The Minister of Health's announcement last week of an £8 million investment is welcome, but, like the funding that was announced last year, it focuses predominantly on short-term stabilising measures that only highlight the urgent need for sustained action and long-term reform. The Minister must bring forward a plan to stabilise NHS dentistry in order to prevent a complete collapse of the service. He must publish the findings of the general dental services (GDS) cost-of-service review without any further delay. It is essential that the NHS dental contract be revised to reflect the true cost of delivering modern dental care, ensuring that practices are not pushed towards privatisation out of financial necessity. Everyone deserves to be fairly paid for the work that they do.

In his three-year plan for Health and Social Care, the Minister has committed to developing an action plan for the reform of general dental services by April 2027, but we are now almost halfway through 2026, and time is running out. I am increasingly concerned that, by April 2027, we may not have any health service dentists left. I urge the Minister to work closely with dentistry representatives to address the issues, which include access, workforce challenges and the growing crisis in NHS dentistry, and to restore public confidence in that vital part of our health service.

Mr Chambers: I very much welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate today. There is not an MLA in the Building who will not be aware of the challenges that our constituents and, indeed, our families have been facing in relation to NHS dentistry. The frustration felt by our constituents is real and entirely understandable. In 2026, it is not just the challenge of finding a dentist who is willing to take on NHS patients but the scale of change in registration data that is really concerning.

We need to remember that Northern Ireland is not alone in facing those pressures. NHS dental systems across these islands are under strain and are demonstrating similar trends. The legacy of the pandemic workforce challenges and contractual models have combined to create a perfect storm in every region and corner of the United Kingdom. Our dental practices are largely independent providers — a bit like our GPs but, perhaps, with even greater autonomy. Despite the major shift from the NHS to private dental work in recent years, most dentists, if not all, care deeply about their patients and want to deliver better oral health for them.

When it comes to those who are still delivering NHS care, I recognise that the current general dental services contract bears little resemblance to today's economic and clinical realities. There is no doubt that registrations have lapsed massively in recent years, but we need to remain mindful that a huge number of patients have been removed for simply not engaging, despite many having had little reason to. That is one of the most challenging issues of all and one that, understandably, can create a real sense of unfairness.

Yes, the concerns raised in today's debate are valid, but so are the Minister's proven efforts on the issue. In recent weeks, the Minister has again not sought to downplay the challenges. Crucially, he has taken real and tangible steps in an almost impossibly constrained financial environment. An additional £8 million investment in health service dentistry this year is not insignificant. It is targeted support to enhance fees for priority treatments, sustain child examination schemes and provide direct support to practices that continue to deliver NHS care.

There is also investment in access through emergency dental clinics and the dental access scheme, which is targeted at those who are most in need, including unregistered patients who require urgent care. The recent unexpected announcement of the establishment of a new emergency clinic in the Western Trust area is a practical example of that focus. Importantly, the Minister is addressing workforce sustainability with additional dental foundation training places to help retain newly qualified dentists in the system. Those are not headline-grabbing reforms, but they are necessary stabilisation measures. Alongside that, the work on the cost-of-service review is essential. Getting that right matters, and it is absolutely essential that decisions are grounded in accurate data and reflect the real cost of delivering care. Dentists, in particular, I suspect, will make that case strongly.

Meaningful reform of NHS dentistry will not happen overnight. It requires careful planning and sustainable funding. However, the previous trends are now pretty unsustainable, so I very much welcome the Minister's efforts in that regard. Perhaps the creation of a multi-year Budget, agreed across the Executive, would be a good place to start.

Mr Durkan: For many of us, a visit to the dentist is an ingrained childhood memory and maybe not always a pleasant one, but it was a normal part of growing up. Access to relatively basic services has become increasingly out of reach for many people. Today, trying to access NHS dental care is like trying to find hen's teeth.

While it is worrying how quickly access to NHS dentistry is being eroded, that has not happened overnight. The warning signs were written on the wall before the pandemic, which has been something of a catalyst for the crisis. The steady loss of basic services has almost become normalised here, met with little more than a shrug from the Executive, it would appear, along with the public's growing sense of fear of what is next. More and more people are already being pushed towards private healthcare, while others face waiting lists that stretch years into the future.

The crisis was not created by dentists; it was created by a system that no longer works. It is a broken model designed, funded, albeit inadequately, and overseen by the Department of Health. Having engaged with local dental practices, I have heard a consistent and clear message: the issue is not a lack of willingness to care for patients but the fact that the current model is no longer financially viable. In many cases, practices are being paid less than it costs them to deliver treatment safely. One local dentist explained to me that, for the Strand Road postcode in Derry, they receive £1·77 per month per child. That is to cover all examinations, X-rays, orthodontic assessments and referrals for general anaesthetic. If a child needs 10 appointments in a month, that fee has to cover all the care required.

We also need to remember that the sector needs more clinicians. Some dentists who are qualifying come into the profession already in debt to the tune of £70,000. Simply put, they then cannot afford to work in the health service. We have reached the absurd position where providers can, in effect, lose money by delivering basic care. As Miss McAllister said, that is not sustainable for any business, any practice or any public service.

Responsibility lies squarely with the Department and the wider Executive, who have allowed the gap between the cost of care and the level of reimbursement to widen year after year. Who pays the price? The most vulnerable.

Ms McLaughlin: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. Does he agree that, once again, it is people who live in the most deprived regions of Northern Ireland who have least access to dental healthcare? I talk particularly about our Foyle constituency. The healthcare professionals — the dentists — working in Foyle are working flat to the mat. It is impossible to deliver a quality service under the strains that they are under.

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

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for the intervention. I am particularly concerned about our most deprived areas, where the problems are worst and where people who are already struggling cannot afford private dental fees and are losing access to dental care. Whether it is pensioners or parents worrying about putting food on the table, everyone should have access to basic dental care regardless of their income or postcode.

In the north-west, health inequalities are already among the starkest anywhere on these islands. Tens of thousands of people are potentially being left without routine care and left to manage pain, infection and worsening conditions on their own. I welcome the recent investment in an emergency dental clinic for the Western Trust area. That is a necessary step, but emergency treatment cannot become a substitute for a functioning routine dental service. We should not have to wait until people are in agony before the system responds, yet that seems to be what is happening. I am contacted daily by constituents on the issue. As I said, many of them are desperate parents who are unable to register their child with a dentist. Is that really what this place has become?

We have a cohort of children born during the pandemic who have never been registered and have never seen a dentist. That means years of missed check-ups and missed opportunities to identify problems early. That is totally unacceptable. Society will pay the price of the consequence of that failure. We have heard from the families of children with disabilities whose conditions make oral health problems more likely and more serious. We have heard parents describe non-verbal children in serious distress. Cases are escalating, because routine appointments just are not available. No family should be left in that position.

As was said, the situation did not happen overnight. It was seen coming. We all saw it coming and were warned of it. Many of us have been raising the issue of the slow erosion of the service for years, yet, in that time, thousands of registrations have lapsed, and there has been no meaningful reform.

The Department must engage with the profession and put in place a payment model that reflects the real cost of delivering care now. We are witnessing a growing cavity in our healthcare system —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time, Mark.

Mr Durkan: — that must be filled now before complete extraction is required.

Ms Flynn: What we are discussing here today is not just dentistry; it is equality and access to basic healthcare. Our constituents deserve a health service that works for everyone, not just those who can afford to go private. The reality that people face is deeply concerning. As has been mentioned, we know that only around half of adults here are registered with an NHS dentist. That clearly points to a system that is moving in the wrong direction. It is also often the case — Sinéad just made the point — that it is those in working-class and deprived communities, such as Foyle, West Belfast and North Belfast, who are hardest hit. As an MLA for West Belfast, I am contacted pretty regularly by constituents who simply cannot access an NHS dentist for themselves or their family.

My colleague Philip McGuigan mentioned the lapsed registrations in his constituency. I am worried about those figures. I am not sure whether the Minister will be able to touch on some of the detail in his response, but, in West Belfast last year alone, there were 29,606 lapsed registrations. I want a wee bit of clarity on why those numbers are so high, because I am not sure what the reason is, but it is obviously pointing to an issue. On the one hand, we are dealing with people who are coming to our offices because they cannot get registered with a dental practice, and, on the other hand, there are thousands of people who are coming off that dental system altogether and just being lost from it. I do not know whether that is linked to "could not attends". I do not even know whether it is the same sort of system. If someone cannot attend, are they being struck off the list, and is it then harder for them to get back onto it? If the Minister has any information on why those figures are so high, that would be useful.

Points have already been raised about the issue of people turning up at emergency departments because they have nowhere else to go. We know that emergency departments are not equipped to deal with chronic dental health conditions. We also know about the issues that they are dealing with when it comes to very young children in particular, some of whom have to go through surgery for their dental condition and end up in an emergency department, which puts additional pressure on our EDs.

The issue of dentists being pushed out of NHS provision has been covered by most of the other Members who have spoken, so we know about the rise in operating costs, the outdated payment model and the absence of any long-term planning. We talk about strategies, Minister, but there is a need for a new oral health strategy. It might not be right up the priority list with all of the other important work that you need to do, but we need some sort of timeline for how we get the work pushed forward, including trying to support workforce planning and the reform of the dental payment system. Those are important and necessary pieces of work. We are still waiting for the cost-of-service review. Is there any update on the funded action plan for reform in dentistry?

The big thing for me is that, as we know, our whole NHS health system is meant to be based on need, but, at the minute, that principle is clearly not being met, especially when we look at the state of our dental care.

Mrs Erskine: In February 2025, I secured an Adjournment debate on the lack of dentist provision in Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Where are we in April 2026? What has changed? Quite frankly, nothing has changed on the ground; in fact, the picture has probably got worse since then. As a Fermanagh and South Tyrone representative and as somebody who needs dental care, as does my family, I hate to say that. I read my speech and the Minister's response from that time. I could honestly copy and paste it and read it out again today.

Health service dentistry in Northern Ireland is facing an existential crisis and threat. Northern Ireland has been experiencing the most rapid decline in health service dentistry anywhere in the UK.

The issue has been escalating for some time and now threatens to deepen the existing health inequalities in my area and across the region. As many know, the transition of dental practices from NHS to private care has led to a growing number of people being unable to access basic dental services. We have seen that in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, leaving families and individuals with limited or no access to affordable dental care.

At the heart of what the Minister says and does — I believe him in this — is dealing with health inequalities. This is a socio-economic problem, and solving it is one of the single biggest impacts that you could make in dealing with health inequalities. The socio-economic determinants are a key factor leading to poor oral health, as has been heard today, and, with increasing numbers of private dentists, many of my constituents are being priced out of accessing healthcare. It is not just about clean teeth. Visiting your dentist is crucial to detecting oral cancers as well, and visiting your dentist can actually save your life and can detect other illnesses. There is a need to look at all of it in the round when you are talking about healthcare and dental care. Dentists feel the pressure. They have been sounding the alarm, and they need action. The piecemeal announcements may sound great, but the cost-of-service review must be published. We need to see the root cause of the issues that are going on beneath the surface.

Last year, I raised one of the fundamental points about dental provision in my constituency, and that is emergency dental care. I welcome the announcement that a clinic is forthcoming for the Western Trust area, but we need detail, and we need to know when that will come. We need to know the timescale, and we need to know what investment will be made in my area. I hope that that emergency dental out-of-hours service will be in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, because, currently, we are relying on the goodwill of dentists in my area to provide that cover. The current out-of-hours dental service is run by, I think, 13 practices, and it accounts for 65,000 patients. On a weekend, you are literally relying on their goodwill to provide treatment in my constituency.

We need to address growing health inequalities. As a local dentist said to me, they keep their NHS lists to a minimum to be able to pay for their overheads. They do still see NHS patients, but that is getting harder because it comes at a cost to them. Looking at the situations that could arise, it is scandalous that, if a 16-year-old with facial swelling comes in as an emergency, the dentist makes zero money on that but still has to provide a service. How can you turn away patients? You cannot do that.

The Health Minister needs to realise that words are no longer enough. We need to act on this. The figures are stark.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Mrs Erskine: I thank my colleagues who tabled the motion and the Members who tabled the amendment.

Mr Gaston: There is much in the motion on which Members across the House will agree. The figures are stark. Only around half of adults in Northern Ireland are now registered with an NHS dentist. Registrations have fallen sharply in the past year. Treatment levels remain below what they were prior to the pandemic. However, I disagree with some of the ways that the issue is presented in the motion. This is not simply a problem of barriers to access; rather, this is the slow collapse of NHS dentistry in Northern Ireland. No amount of warm words about access will change that reality.

The fundamental issue is that the current model is no longer fit for purpose. Dentists are not leaving the NHS out of neglect or indifference, they are leaving because, quite simply, they cannot afford to stay due to rising costs, workforce pressures and an outdated payment system that does not reflect the true cost of delivering care. In areas such as Ballymena and Ballymoney, small independent practices are being bought over by larger groups. The model changes, NHS patients are dropped, and the only option offered to many people is private monthly plans, often starting at £12 per month. We are seeing a public service replaced by a private system. We are also seeing the strain on the workforce. Dentists are leaving practices due to stress and pressure. The remaining staff are unable to absorb the demand. Patients are travelling significant distances simply to find a practice still offering NHS care. In many cases, the nearest option is no longer in their home town or neighbouring town. They have to travel further afield.

There is another dimension that cannot be ignored. At a time when the system is already under severe pressure, additional regulatory burdens are being layered on. We have changes relating to dental amalgam driven by EU alignment rules that will create further complexity in supply and cost. That is happening here in Northern Ireland in a way that does not apply across the rest of our United Kingdom. While we are struggling to sustain NHS dentistry, we are simultaneously making it difficult to operate. That is because of the Irish Sea border: some in the Chamber denied its existence in order to return to Stormont and others have recklessly championed it throughout.

Mr Carroll: I declare an interest: I have a sibling who is a practising dentist. I support the motion — I thank the Members who tabled it — and the amendment from the Alliance Party, although we have to wonder whether another strategy is needed rather than the Minister and the Executive just doing what needs to be done.

As the Member opposite said, thousands of our constituents in West Belfast are living in unbearable agony. They are pulling out their own teeth and living with untreated infections because they cannot get access to a dentist that they can afford. How many oral cancer diagnoses have been missed? How many death sentences have effectively been declared because people have been unable to get access to a dentist? This is fundamentally a class issue and a poverty issue. It is a crisis that the Minister and successive Governments have allowed to fester year-on-year without getting a grip on the crisis. Fewer than a million people — just half of the population — are registered with a health service dentist in the North, which is frightening, and almost 400,000 people have been lost since 2023. I do not understand how a patient just gets lost and there is no follow-up action from the Department or a health trust. The mind boggles.

The number of health service dental treatments delivered is 40% lower than before the pandemic. Health service dentistry has utterly collapsed, and I would say by design. It is no coincidence that the communities that suffer most are in constituencies such as West Belfast, as was mentioned, and other deprived areas with high levels of poverty and inequality, where private dental fees are unaffordable for working-class families. The link between poverty and poor oral health is well established. Children in deprived areas suffer disproportionately from tooth decay. Untreated dental disease leads to children missing school, missed work appointments and missed hospital admissions, and, quite often, lifelong health consequences and complications. When NHS dentistry crumbles, it is never the wealthy who are left behind.

As I said, the crisis did not appear from nowhere. Almost since the NHS was founded, decades ago, dental care has been coming under sustained attack. Just a year after its creation in 1948, the Labour Government introduced dental prescription fees, while charges for dentures followed in 1951. That slow privatisation has never stopped. Today, under a different Labour Government at Westminster, with a Stormont Executive doing their bidding at home, dentistry is closer than ever to breaking point. I do not think that the alarm bells have gone off in the Department, however.

NHS dentists are losing money. They are being forced to subsidise NHS work with private income, and that simply should not be the case. Market solutions created the crisis, and they will never be able to solve it. As the British Dental Association has put it, the service is running on empty. Dentists across the North are either going private or simply giving up. Dentists who spend the majority of their time delivering treatment on the NHS earn, on average, 46% less than those whose work is mostly private. That is unacceptable and, obviously, unsustainable.

Dentists are being financially punished for providing public healthcare. The cost-of-service review has still not been published, and it must form the basis of a genuine rebasing of fees and a serious programme of payment reform. Tinkering at the edges is not enough to end the crisis, however. We need full public ownership of dental services, free at the point of use, properly resourced and taken out of the hands of private profit entirely. That is the only permanent solution to the dental emergency.

Ms Sugden: This is an issue that has been raised consistently in the House over a number of years, across various mandates and throughout the tenure of successive Ministers. I agree with Deborah Erskine that the situation on the ground continues to get worse. For a growing number of people across Northern Ireland, NHS dentistry is no longer something that they can access. To all intents and purposes, it is becoming privatised. Only around half of adults are now registered with a dentist, and registrations have dropped sharply in the past year. We need to ask why. Is it down to poor public health messaging, or are people simply fed up trying to get an appointment that does not exist? Treatment levels remain well below where they were before the pandemic. That is a system in decline.

I appreciate the proposer of the motion's arguments, because they reflect exactly what people on the ground are telling us, which is that they cannot get registered, cannot get appointments and, more often than not, are told that their only option is to go private.

We need to be clear about from where the pressure comes. It is not from the dentists, who have held the service together for longer than they should have been expected to. What I hear from dentists on the ground is that the current model is neither financially viable nor sustainable. It is not about profit but about existence. Dental practices are businesses, and if they cannot afford to cover their costs, they cannot continue. When that happens, people lose access entirely.

There is a huge gap between what the Department is paying and what it costs to deliver that type of healthcare. As the gap grows, dentists are being forced to reduce their NHS work and move towards providing private care. I have seen it happen locally. Practices that would have preferred to remain within the NHS are stepping back from it because they simply cannot afford to make NHS dentistry work. The pandemic accelerated the situation, but it did not create it. Rather, it exposed a system that was already under strain, while the cost of delivering care increased through higher clinical standards and longer treatment times. At the same time, the issue is not necessarily about the number of dentists but about how much NHS care dentists can realistically provide under the current model. Right now, the amount of care that they can provide is falling.

The Department will point to the funding from schemes and recent investment, but that does not change people's experience when they try to access a dentist. It is one of the issues raised most frequently in my constituency office. Every MLA in Northern Ireland will have an example of when someone has come in and asked, "Do you know of any NHS dentists?", and the answer is no.

We are still awaiting the publication of the cost-of-service review, which is meant to inform the reform. That delay matters, because, without it, there is no clear path to fixing the problem at the centre.

I accept that the situation is not unique to Northern Ireland, but we are a devolved Administration and therefore have the ability to act. Over a number of years, that action has not come at the pace or scale that is needed. Dentistry is not optional. It is part of our health system. When people cannot access routine care, problems are delayed and become more serious, and that places further pressure on a system that is already struggling.

We spend a lot of time dealing with the consequences of poor health, and dentistry is one area in which, if we intervene earlier to prevent problems, we can reduce that pressure. It is about investing to save, which is a phrase that the Executive would do well to consider, because, when access drops, we lose opportunity. As with so many issues, as others have said, the pressure is not felt equally. Those in the most deprived areas experience worse outcomes, so it is an equality issue. We have a First Minister who talks about being the Minister for equality, but her Government do not demonstrate that.

I support the amendment, because we need a longer-term approach and to look at the workforce and how services are structured. However, unfortunately, strategy cannot come at the expense of urgency, and, sadly, the issue in front of us is now urgent: can NHS dentistry remain viable? If the payment model does not work, the service will continue to shrink regardless of what our strategy says. I will therefore support the amendment, but, Minister, the strategy must be matched by immediate action rather than saying, "Let's leave it until the next mandate", because we know what will happen then.

That means publishing the cost-of-service review without delay; putting in place a sustainable payment model; and taking steps to protect access for NHS patients. If we continue on the current path, we will not just have a system that is under pressure; large parts of it will be lost to our population. Once it is gone, it will be very difficult to rebuild. That is why we need action now.

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

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank the proposer of the motion, the proposer of the amendment and, indeed, all Members who contributed. I begin by fully acknowledging the strength of feeling not just in the Chamber but amongst the public regarding access to health service dentistry. The concerns are legitimate and widely shared.

The figures highlighted in the motion are stark, as are the scale and pace of the decline in dental registrations in the health service here. Over the past two years, the proportion of individuals registered with a health service dentist has declined significantly, and the volume of treatment being provided is lower than it was before the COVID-19 pandemic. Those trends present real challenges not just for patients but for dental professionals and for the sustainability of the entire system.

Against that backdrop, it is important to place the issues in context, to outline the factors that have contributed to the current position and to describe the work that is under way to address immediate pressures and the longer-term structural issues in general dental services (GDS).

The decline in registrations and activity is the result not of a single failure or decision but, rather, a number of interrelated and cumulative pressures that have built up over time. Like many other healthcare services, dentistry was significantly impacted on by the pandemic, resulting in a backlog of unmet need, disrupted patterns of attendance and registration and, for some, an increased reliance on private care, further widening inequalities in access.

I am particularly conscious of, and share Members' concerns about, registrations lapsing due to non-attendance. While that may be understandable in the context of the disruption caused by the pandemic, it can create significant additional barriers to individuals who are seeking urgent or preventative care, especially where access options were already limited.

At the same time, dental practices have reported increases in operating costs, including staff costs, the cost of clinical supplies, energy prices and the ongoing costs associated with regulatory and contractual compliance.

Members have raised concerns about the sustainability of the current general dental services payment model. The GDS contract has been in place largely unchanged since 1990 and was not designed for the cost-based workforce reality or patient demand that exist today, so I am determined to look at that in the remainder of the mandate.

It has been widely acknowledged that rising operating costs have placed the payment model under unsustainable strain. The pressures have contributed to a contraction in health service dentistry across all trust areas in recent years at a faster pace than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. That has been compounded by workforce challenges, including difficulties with recruitment and retention, and by the increasing attractiveness of having a private practice as a mechanism for some providers to manage their rising costs. I commissioned the cost-of-service review precisely to provide a robust, evidence-based assessment of all those challenges. The purpose of the review is to ensure that decisions on dental payment reform are informed by a clear and accurate understanding of the costs that are involved in delivering health service dental care in Northern Ireland.

I recognise the sense of urgency that Members have around the publication of the review report, given its importance to both the dental profession and the Assembly. I share that sense of urgency. My officials have received a copy of the draft report and have been actively scrutinising its contents, as one would imagine they would. They met with the author, Professor Ciaran O'Neill, on Friday past and sought clarification on a number of issues. I am told that certain areas of the report need a rewrite so that it is user-friendly and as clear as possible in its thoughts and conclusions. The report remains in draft form, subject to that further clarification and assurance, but I want to have the final version in a matter of weeks. I also fully recognise the fact that accurately estimating the cost per hour of delivering health service dental care is inherently complex. I expect to go into negotiations with dental representatives about the conclusions. Dental practices vary significantly in size and have different staffing models and patient mixes. Any robust cost assessment must take proper account of that complexity and diversity.

Although the report remains in draft form, it is an important piece of work that will, I hope, ensure that any future reform is grounded in accurate and robust evidence. I do not wish to pre-empt any conclusions, but I stress again that it is an urgent matter for me and the Department. I have directed officials to continue to engage closely with the author and to work at pace to complete the necessary assurance and consideration processes. Furthermore, any changes to the payment system must be financially sustainable, deliver value for public money and support improved access and outcomes for patients.

I recognise the call to develop an action plan for reform. As already detailed in my three-year plan for health and social care, that action plan will be in place by the end of the financial year and will provide a road map for the future of general dental services. Alongside the cost-of-service review, the work of the general dental services reform advisory group will play a key role in shaping the development of an action plan for reform. I also recognise and accept the importance of balancing the need for urgent stabilisation measures with longer-term reform.

Members will be aware of the extremely challenging financial context in which we are operating. My Department faces a projected deficit of towards £800 million in this financial year — £800 million — but we are currently working without an agreed Budget. That places a very real and unavoidable constraint on my ability to do all the things that I want to do or to move at the pace at which I would like to move.

Despite those constraints, and in the full knowledge that this cannot, on its own, resolve the underlying problems, I made the decision to prioritise an additional £8 million investment in health service dentistry this year. That investment will fund the continuation of the 30% enhancement to the fees associated with fillings, extractions and root canal treatment; the continuation of the enhanced child examination scheme; an increase to the activity support payment that was introduced last year from £1·6 million to £2 million; the commissioning of an emergency dental clinic in the Western Trust area; and an additional six dental foundation training places. I can say to Mrs Erskine that it is planned that the centre — the emergency unit — will be housed in her constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone.

Mrs Erskine: Hear, hear.

Mr Nesbitt: I can also tell Members that, between June 2024 and March of this year, 76,493 children were registered with the enhanced child examination scheme.

I am acutely aware that access to affordable dental care is not distributed evenly across communities. Barriers to access can disproportionately affect those on lower incomes, older people, individuals with disabilities and those who live in rural or socio-economically deprived areas. The point has been made about that health inequality. In terms of dental decay, the inequalities follow socio-economic gradients. That is a global issue and is not particular to us.

I recognise the need to improve access for not only registered patients but those who are currently unregistered, particularly where there is an urgent clinical need. Schemes such as emergency dental clinics and the dental access scheme are therefore essential components of the current response. In that context, it is vital that the limited resources available are targeted where they can have the greatest impact. That is why this investment also includes funding for the establishment of a new emergency dental clinic in the western area, where registration rates have historically been and remain lower than in other regions. The new clinic will provide additional access at weekends and public holidays for patients in need. In addition, the dental access scheme continues to provide weekday access for patients with a pressing or urgent oral health need.

The sustainability of health service dentistry is inseparable from workforce issues. Recruitment and retention challenges are evident right across Northern Ireland and continue to affect dental services. To help address that, the funding package will also support six additional dental foundation training places this year, helping to retain newly qualified dentists, addressing workforce shortages and strengthening the sustainability of health service dentistry in the years to come.

I am taking action now, within the limits of the resources available to me, to make targeted improvements. I am also putting in place the evidence and the framework required for the much-needed long-term reform, but I cannot pretend that those measures alone will reverse decades of structural pressure. I want to be clear with Members: the pace of reform is constrained not by any lack of willingness or ambition on my or my Department's behalf but by the absence of the financial envelope that is required to act at scale, which is what we need to do. Frankly, without an agreed and realistic budget, the scope for accelerating reform remains highly limited. Protecting health service dentistry requires funding decisions that are aligned with the realities of delivering the service.

I will turn to a couple more points that were made by Members. Some Members talked about DIY dentistry. My officials have no evidence of that happening in Northern Ireland, but, if it is, I am very much open to hearing about it. I want to talk also —.

Mr Carroll: I appreciate the Minister's giving way. It has been widely reported by dentists that that is happening. Minister, if you were to get evidence of that, what would you do to ensure that it does not happen and is stamped out?

Mr Nesbitt: The first thing that I need is evidence of it, and I repeat that I am being told by my officials in dentistry that, while there is evidence of it happening in Great Britain, there is no evidence of it here. If the Member can bring me evidence — if it is happening, it is incredibly serious — I will talk to officials about how best to handle it.

I want to touch on the issue of payments, because it was raised by Members. An additional £2·5 million was allocated to general dental services on a recurrent basis to support the increase in National Insurance contributions. That is being distributed in line with the proportion of practice allowance received by practices in the 2025-26 financial year. It is being paid in two instalments, and that is aligned with the practice allowance payments for the 2025-26 financial year. The first of those was paid in December last year, and the second is scheduled for payment in May this year, following the next practice allowance payment.

Mr Durkan talked about orthodontic assessments. I have to say that there are additional payments for those. Mr Gaston talked about dental amalgam and blamed the issue on the Irish Sea border. He is entirely wrong — he is entirely wrong. It is UK-wide, following an international agreement. I am happy to put that correction on the record.

I accept that it is a crisis in dental services, but I ask Members to accept that my ability to rise to that challenge is constrained primarily by a budget that is currently forecast to be between £750 million and £800 million light, which means that some very hard choices will have to be made. The Chairman of the Health Committee said that stabilisation is not good enough; I agree with him, but it is the essential first step.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. I call Danny Donnelly to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. I advise you, Danny, that you have five minutes.

Mr Donnelly: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to speak in support of the motion and the amendment, and I welcome the opportunity to make a winding-up speech.

Members across the Chamber have reflected on the seriousness of the pressures facing NHS dentistry and on the very real consequences for the constituents who can no longer access the care that they need. There has been clear recognition during the debate that it is not a short-term pressure nor a localised difficulty; it is a deep structural problem that now requires a serious and strategic response. Many of the comments made in today's debate were strikingly similar. I will not go into all of them, but a few of them deserve to be highlighted.

The horrible idea that people are doing DIY dentistry on themselves is absolutely harrowing, and the issue was raised by Diane and Gerry. I cannot get that idea out of my head. I hope that there is no evidence, but, if there is, we should take urgent action.

Ms Sugden: Will the Member give way?

Mr Donnelly: Yes, certainly.

Ms Sugden: There is not likely to be evidence if the Department is not collecting it, and it is difficult to address an issue if we do not have that data. From your experience, what method would you recommend and suggest to the Minister to collect the information that is anecdotally known about but needs to be backed up with data?

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

Mr Donnelly: Thank you. The evidence is anecdotal. If dentists see teeth with those impacts or people say that they have done it or that other people have done it, it has to be reported to the political representatives.

Mr Carroll: I appreciate the Member giving way. Does the Member agree that the best way to get the evidence is to listen to the dentists, because the patients will not provide videos? Does he agree that listening to the dentists is the best way for the Department, the Minister and the House to find out whether it is happening?

Mr Donnelly: Yes. The Member is exactly right. Certainly, I hope that the practice does not exist, but, if it does, we need to take urgent action.

Órlaithí mentioned the fact that people who are without dental care end up in A&E, and that is another impact on our secondary healthcare system. Mark Durkan mentioned that the loss of services has become normalised, and he is absolutely right that people accept that now as part and parcel of the system.

The motion rightly highlights the deterioration in access to NHS dentistry and the consequences for patients across Northern Ireland. Our amendment calls on the Minister not simply to accelerate an action plan but to develop a new oral health strategy. As we have heard, the British Dental Association has been clear that NHS dentistry in Northern Ireland has shrunk at a faster rate than in anywhere else in the United Kingdom. It has also warned that the absence of meaningful workforce planning over many years is compounding the crisis. Reforming the payment model is essential, and the Minister suggested in his contribution that he intends to address the contract that has been in place since 1990 and that the cost-of-service review will be with him in a matter of weeks.

Funding is an important part of the problem. I want to reflect on the Minister's recent response to a question for written answer that I asked about a £2·1 million reduction in expenditure on NHS dentistry. I asked the Minister about the impact of that reduction on NHS dentistry services, and his response stated:

Would anyone here credibly present that as a genuine saving? A reduction in expenditure caused by shrinking services is not a success; it is a false economy.

Poor oral health is not a stand-alone issue. When patients cannot access dental care, it affects the whole healthcare system. It increases the risk of heart disease, diabetes and other systemic conditions. It is also an equality issue. When the rates of dental decay among both children and adults are highest in the most deprived areas, as we have heard time and time again today, there is an obvious two-tier system. For a Minister who has often spoken about his commitment to tackling health inequalities, this surely has to be one of the worst.

Closing that gap means prioritising prevention, increasing access to NHS dentistry, integrating oral health into wider health policy and ending any assumption that access to dental care is somehow optional or secondary when it is, in fact, fundamental to health and well-being. Older patients who have attended the same practice for decades are being told that NHS provision is no longer available; some parents are struggling to find care for their children; some adults are putting off treatment until the pain becomes unbearable, because they cannot find a NHS appointment and cannot afford the private fees; and we have heard some of the options that people are trying for themselves. That is not sustainable or acceptable. We need to stop managing decline and to start leading reform.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Danny. I call Alan Robinson to conclude and make a winding-up speech on the motion. Alan, you have 10 minutes.

Mr Robinson: Thanks very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Hopefully, today, we will achieve a record. Earlier, we had a couple of hours' debate on the Sign Language Bill and achieved unanimity, and, hopefully, we will get unanimity on this matter of such significant importance.

I will say some words that my constituents will very much expect me to say. I do not think that it is an exaggeration to say that getting a NHS dentist feels close to impossible for many people in Northern Ireland. Half the population is not registered with a dentist, compared with over two million who are registered with a GP practice, and it is getting worse, not better. As others have said, registrations have dropped by 17% in the past year, and all future projections point one way: downwards. At the same time, the number of health service treatments being carried out is nowhere near what it was before the pandemic. People might hear that things are recovering, but that is not what the public are experiencing. Every Member can vouch for the fact that our constituents — I say "our", so the constituents of every one of us — are ringing practice after practice and being told, "We're not taking NHS patients". Their experience is putting them off treatment until the pain becomes unbearable, and they are experiencing a growing sense that unless you can afford to go private, sadly, you are on your own. That is not how our health service is supposed to work. People are, rightly, asking why they are paying National Insurance. We said all of this just a year ago: it is a case of rinse and repeat. I have to be honest and say that I do not get job satisfaction from saying the same things but nothing changing. I can understand it when the public say that they are sick to the back teeth, if they have any teeth left.

We need to be honest about why this is happening. It is not because dentists do not want to treat NHS patients. It is because health service dentistry is no longer viable. As has been said by multiple Members, material, energy and staffing costs — all costs — have gone up, but dentists say that the payments that they receive for NHS work has not kept pace. Therefore practices are being squeezed from both sides, and the result is entirely predictable: they are reducing the NHS work or stopping it all together. Unless there is a fix, nothing that we say here today will make any difference, and, sadly, following the debate, nobody will be able to ring their local dentist and have the door flung open to them. If I am fed up, how do the public feel?

There are also smaller decisions that are having big consequences. Take the issue of registrations lapsing due to non-attendance, for instance. On paper, that might seem reasonable, but, in reality, it can mean that someone misses an appointment because they, perhaps, could not get time off work or their childcare fell through, and then, suddenly, they can be out of the system. Once they are out, getting back in is incredibly difficult. Effectively locking people out for reasons that often have very little to do with choice is just not right.

As we have mentioned today and many times before, there is also a wider cost involved. When people cannot access dental care, that has a knock-on effect. What could have been a simple check-up turns into an emergency. What could have been prevention turns into intervention. We all know that patients sometimes end up in GP surgeries or in hospital settings, which are already bursting at the seams. That is why the continued wait for the publication of the Department of Health's cost-of-service review is so frustrating. We have been waiting, dentists have been waiting and patients have been waiting. Without that review's findings, we are trying to fix a huge crisis without having the full picture. We therefore really need that review to be published. I appreciate that the Minister said today that he is expecting to receive a rewrite and that he wants that within weeks. I hope that, once he receives that rewrite, the review will be published. As I say, we need that review to be published and for there to be an overhaul of the current practice system.

Dentists want a payment model that reflects the true cost of providing care. NHS dentistry needs to be stabilised before more practices walk away from it, because if the Department does not get to grips with the situation, we in the Province will drift quietly but steadily towards yet another two-tier system: one in which those who can pay get seen quickly, while those who cannot are left waiting or simply go without. Once that line is crossed, if it has not been already, it will be very hard to come back from.

I will end by referring to the words of a local dentist in my constituency of East Londonderry. I received this correspondence recently:

That dentist concluded by saying:

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

Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Just to clarify, there is an amendment in the name of my party colleagues that will not be moved. Due to unforeseen circumstances, they are not here to formally not move the amendment. However, I want to put on record, for the convenience of the House, that the amendment would not have been moved in any case, following useful conversations with colleagues in the Alliance Party.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you for letting us know. We will refer to it from the Table, but that is noted and appreciated.

Mrs Guy: I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee had agreed to allow one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion would have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. As an amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate.

Please open the debate on the motion.

Mrs Guy: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to propose the motion to give a voice to a workforce in our schools that is at the front line of our SEN crisis, our special educational needs coordinators (SENCOs). My colleagues across the House and I have listened to SENCOs in our constituencies, in the Education Committee and across Northern Ireland. They have come to us often in desperation at the level of workload, the lack of support, the outworking of reforms and the fact that their concerns about those reforms are ignored. Ultimately, they feel that, too often, they are unable to deliver for the children for whom they advocate. That creates an unbearable personal toll for many SENCOs, resulting in the job that they love impacting on their personal lives and their health. One SENCO in my constituency has had to go on blood pressure medication because of the stress that they are now under. That pressure is a consequence of a broken system.

When you speak to a SENCO, you end up asking yourself how one person can do that job, especially when you consider that they often have to teach as well. The answer is simple: they sacrifice. They sacrifice their free time. Many are now also sacrificing their health. It appears to me that they find themselves at the centre of our broken system. Their first priority and focus is, of course, the children whom they are trying to support. However, they are also the key support for other school staff, who are, increasingly, teaching children with additional needs in their classrooms. They are working with parents and families who are fighting for their children. They are trying to understand, navigate and implement constant changes from the Education Authority (EA) and Department and manage the expectations of families and school staff following those changes. They are reporting to boards of governors or having to go through the statutory appeals process, working with health colleagues and other therapeutic support teams. Because they are at the centre of special educational needs, you would imagine that they are the key to any major changes, such as local impact teams (LITs) or the statutory assessment changes, yet we seem to find ourselves in the troubling position where those holding the system together feel completely ignored. I am not here to blame individuals in the Department or the EA, but I need them to listen. I know that officials and the Minister are genuinely trying to improve the situation, but, if things continue as they are, more SENCOs will leave their roles, no one will step up to fill the positions, and the system will fall further into crisis.

Officials coming to the Committee or the Minister standing up in the Chamber quoting favourable voices to contradict the swell of testimony that we as representatives hear is insulting to us all. It suggests a desire to control the narrative rather than solve the problems. There is also the lingering concern that changes have been designed to make things look better. That concern is simply not going away. It is not the stuff of conspiracy; it is based on lived experience. Here is a verbatim example from a SENCO, who is representing the experiences of a SENCO cluster group:

SENCOs all understand the constraints that the system operates within, but they do not understand why you will not listen to them. They want the transformation of the system to work, but to work in reality, not on the basis of numerical metrics that measure the flow of cases. The only real measure is delivering effective interventions for children.

The disconnect that exists between what we as MLAs and Committee members hear weekly from SENCOs and what we hear from the Department and the EA is counterproductive. The reality of the situation needs to be understood not just with regard to data and box ticking but through the experience of SENCOs on the ground. We need the EA and SENCOs saying the same thing, even if that means reflecting the problems.

Paperwork, statementing and educational psychologist referrals are recurring themes that illustrate that disconnect. Here is one example from a SENCO that typifies those issues:

Another SENCO cluster from the north-west summarises the broader picture well:

She goes on:

That last line is really important. They are not attributing overwhelm to the number of children; they are attributing it to the increased bureaucracy resulting from the transformation programme.

On statementing, SENCOs with 15 or 20 years of experience have a level of judgement and expertise that should be trusted. That would allow processes to move more quickly and appropriate support for the child to be introduced in a timely way. However, there are growing concerns that statements are being denied, when the need to proceed with one is clear.

I have a clear example of that from my casework in Lagan Valley. A SENCO with around 20 years' experience, who has never had a statement refused for a child, had one refused this year for the first time. They went through the appeals process, and I requested a review of the decision by the EA. On the same date, the SENCO received a letter outlining that the statement process would go ahead. I received a contradictory letter from the EA explaining why the original decision to refuse the statement was the right one. How are SENCOs meant to navigate that?

The motion calls for the Minister to undertake a workload review. That could be a short process that resets communication between our SENCOs and those leading the transformation programme corporately. Coming into today, there was hope that the Minister's workforce announcement this morning would provide something specific and meaningful for SENCOs. I even teased it with some of the group with whom I had been in touch, but, ultimately, it reflected how they already feel: ignored, marginalised and misunderstood.

The SENCO role is very specific. It deals with specific processes and pressures related to the SEN system. SENCOs are clear about what needs to change. Paperwork needs to be reduced and systems streamlined so that they can spend more time with children, staff and families. The complexity of the role needs to be acknowledged through pay and the provision of non-teaching roles. The professionalism of SENCOs needs to be recognised, and they need to be trusted in the system. The support system needs to be properly invested in and implemented consistently. What the Minister announced today does not even attempt to address those things. Generic whole-school admin support is not nearly tailored enough to help.

Before I wrap up, I will address the SDLP amendment, although I know that it will not be moved, which is welcome. I have no issue with the amendment, especially in light of the Children's Law Centre's intervention last week. The volume and pace of the reforms coming at schools are overwhelming. That will be illustrated in the debate, but it risks doing more harm than good. Today is about SENCOs and their specific needs, so I appreciate the SDLP working with us to ensure that that remains the focus today.

With a year to go in the mandate, I hope that this is an area where cross-party support and focus can bring about improvements for those vital workers, who dedicate their professional careers to supporting children, families and teachers. We all owe them a huge debt of thanks for holding together a system in crisis.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): As Mr O'Toole pointed out in his point of order, the Members who tabled the amendment are not in the Chamber to formally move it, so it cannot be debated today. I will now call the next person on the list to continue the debate on the motion. All contributors will have five minutes.

Mr Baker: I thank the proposer of the motion. What Michelle said was spot on and covered all of the issues.

We all want to play our role in supporting children with additional needs and their families. My knowledge comes from parents; campaign groups, such as Caleb's cause; support groups, such as Families with Ups and Downs, SHINE Autism Support Group and Colin Autism Support Group; our teachers; school leaders; classroom assistants; and, of course, our SENCOs. Today is about our SENCOs. I will read out a small part of the evidence that the Education Committee heard from a SENCO:

We heard that just a few months ago. The warning signs have been there for a long time. The SEN reform agenda risks making the same mistakes all over again.

Caleb's cause has shown us the cost of getting things wrong at transition points. It has shown us what happens when children and young adults with additional needs do not receive support in time; families are left to fight a system instead of being supported by it; and gaps, delays and pressures turn into real-life consequences. At the centre of preventing those failures, standing quietly in every school, are our SENCOs. They are the ones who identify need, coordinate support and fight to make sure that no child is left behind. They are being asked to do the impossible: to spend hours well beyond those that they are contracted to work, providing that help and support to families.

SENCOs are not just coordinators; they are full-time teachers. They manage their classrooms or the specialist provision in mainstream schools (SPiMS) by day and complete their complex SEN responsibilities in the margins of an already overflowing workload. Now, under the Minister's reforms, through local impact teams and changes to classroom support, more will be added to their workload: more coordination, administration and responsibility. What happens when SENCOs, who are already overwhelmed, are asked to carry ever more? That question is not rhetorical. We have already seen it: delays, missed needs and families losing trust and all hope.

We cannot claim to learn from campaigns such as Caleb's cause while we create the conditions that risk repeating those failures. No one opposes the need for reform; we just need better reform that is resourced and realistic and that recognises that SENCOs are not an unlimited resource but are human beings who carry out one of the most demanding roles in our education system. Minister, I ask you, please, to listen to SENCOs, parents, teachers and support staff, to the Children's Law Centre and to children's rights advocates. You have a choice to either listen to the warnings or risk repeating past failures.

Mr Martin: I thank the Members who tabled the motion for doing so and allowing the Assembly to recognise the amazing work that SENCOs do in Northern Ireland. For clarity, I say that my party will support the motion.

Anyone who has a working knowledge of education in Northern Ireland will realise how crucial SENCOs are. I have written in my notes that they are the glue that holds together the support network for our most vulnerable pupils, but the proposer of the motion was probably more eloquent than I am on that. Everyone — teachers, parents and even politicians — will realise that SENCOs are under enormous pressure. That pressure is being generated not just because of some of the system pressures that the proposer of the motion mentioned but because of the sheer number of children who are presenting with special educational needs in Northern Ireland. At the outset, I want to acknowledge that I accept the motion and that SENCOs need additional support, along the lines that the proposer suggested.

When we look at some of the numbers and drill down into where the pressure is coming from, we know that one in five children in the school-age population in Northern Ireland have some level of special educational needs. However, I came across an even more striking figure, which is the number of children who are attending specialist provision in mainstream schools. If you scope that out over the past 10 years, that number has increased from around 1,600 children to 5,300 children. To put that figure into some context, that is an increase of some 213% over that 10-year period. SENCOs and principals will agree that what school life looked like in 2015 was very different from what it looks like now.

The proposer of the motion mentioned the local impact teams. Those teams were introduced in September 2025 and have certainly made an impact. There is a change in the code and in how that code is being delivered. I am pretty sure that I have heard at the Education Committee — the EA has also stated it — that those teams need to be better resourced. The proposer mentioned that in her opening remarks. I think that other members of the Education Committee will accept that, and the EA has agreed to do that and has taken that on.

On the issue of wider reform, which both contributors so far have touched on, we are cognisant of the letter from the Children's Law Centre and other signatories that was sent to the Committee last week. I have to make it clear that I do not agree with it and neither does my party. I will quote directly from the letter, which states:

Most of us will agree that what we have in place currently to support special educational needs children in Northern Ireland is very far from ideal and is certainly not aligned to either the numbers of those children or the complexity of their cases. However, we do not have the luxury of doing nothing in this situation. Children with SEN in Northern Ireland need better support, and the system needs reform. We simply must do better for those children. The SEN reform agenda that the Minister is taking forward is the right way to go, and we will see its outworking in due course, as more support is placed in the system. We cannot maintain the status quo, because maintaining the status quo is not fair to the SENCOs who are under that pressure and live with it daily.

To SENCOs across Northern Ireland, I say this: you are amazing; you are valued; and thank you.

Mr Burrows: I will be brief, because there is a unanimous view in the Chamber that SENCOs are worth their weight in gold, as are classroom assistants. They provide support to the most vulnerable in our society, and it is right that we support them. If we are honest about the situation, they are being asked to do too many things. Coordinating the special educational needs provision for our young people is a vital, highly skilled and highly demanding full-time role. For SENCOs to do that while dealing with the excess bureaucracy that they face as well as being teachers is not sustainable and is not fair. I therefore support the motion.

It is clear from my engagement with the teaching profession that teachers, almost without exception, believe that being a SENCO should be a full-time role. We need to arrive at that position, but we also need to look at the wider pressures that SENCOs face from excess bureaucracy. They face a lot of paperwork and bureaucracy. Things are not streamlined. There is insufficient support from the EA. All of that needs to be looked at. It is not simply about saying that a SENCO should be non-teaching. That is one vital aspect, but it needs to be backed up by giving SENCOs the proper skills, proper accreditation and proper support, by reducing the administration and by letting them do their job, which is to coordinate the best care for children who have special educational needs.
I agree with Mr Martin's comment. We have an issue in our society with the exponentially growing number of children with special educational needs. I do not know whether, as a society, we have fully understood what that means for us, what is causing it, how we should deal with it, how we should support parents who are dealing with it and how we should look at the impact that it might have in the future. If we give those young people the right support, many of them will be able to go on and have a job, but unless we get it right —.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. Does he agree that the way in which we currently support children with special educational needs is not sustainable and needs reform or some level of change, because we cannot maintain the status quo?

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

Mr Burrows: Absolutely. The need for reform is absolutely compelling. Of course, reform has to be the correct reform. It has to be sustainable. It has to make sure that there is no burnout. If we are honest, there are some children who will never go into the workplace. Some of them are in my family. They just need support, love and care and to be given the best quality of life. However, there are children who can go into the workforce, have a job and do all those things, which is why this is so important, because it will combat future economic inactivity. That is why we need to find the money to get special educational needs provision right.

I fully support the motion. I am glad that it was moved.

Mr Baker: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: Yes, I will.

Mr Baker: Does the Member accept that there is a really big role for Health the whole way through this, and particularly at post-19? We can see, through the local impact teams, that the fact that Health is not really engaged is putting the cart before the horse.

Mr Burrows: I raised the issue in Westminster and said that, at some stage, as a nation — I will include the Republic of Ireland, because we had the North/South Ministerial Council statement today, so I will extend it to the five regions that make up our two islands — we need collectively to look at what is happening across Europe and understand the issue with SEN. There is an increase in numbers that teachers have never seen before. The whole Executive need to grapple with the issue, because, otherwise, education is going to cost far more than it ever has done before. That is the reality. That involves looking at early years and at nought-to-five, which is an issue for the Department of Health, as well as for parents. It is a societal issue that we have to grasp. If we do not, we face a future in which the children will not get the help that they need, in which our workforce will not have the people it needs and in which parents at home will not have the support that they need.

I am moving slightly away from the subject, but summer schemes for children with special educational needs last for only two weeks. I know parents who want to work and contribute to the economy, but they cannot, because they have to look after their child as their school is closed. Not investing in such schemes costs us more than we are saving. Moreover, children who have progressed in school are considered to be going backwards because they have not had the routine of being in their school for six weeks or eight weeks.

I support the motion and am glad that it was tabled for debate. The Executive and society collectively need to take an honest, hard look nationally at the exponential rise in special educational needs to determine how we are going to manage the situation end to end throughout its life cycle.

I am humbled when I go into schools and meet the men and women who support our children with special needs. I thank them and value them, and I want to make sure that they see that value in their pay packet, in their terms and conditions and in their professional accreditations.

Ms McLaughlin: I thank the signatories to the motion for tabling it. The SDLP supports the motion. The debate that we are having this evening is really important.

It is well known that we have a crisis in the delivery of special needs education. It is underfunded and under-resourced, and the workforce is under ever-increasing strain and pressure. Despite that, our SENCOs provide an immeasurable service to our young people in schools. They are the ones who ensure that best practice is maintained. They work hard to support subject teachers, to tailor lesson plans, to adapt materials, to implement individualised learning plans and to give children the acute and essential structured support that they need in order to thrive. Although our SENCOs are increasingly in need of support, that support is not forthcoming. SENCOs increasingly have to take time off work because they are stressed, burnt out or sick. They are juggling demands, because many are classroom teachers as well as being SENCOs. Despite being the backbone of SEN delivery in our mainstream schools, they do not receive the support that they need in those schools or in education more generally.

Let us therefore be honest about the reality that we are facing. In the vast majority of cases, SENCOs are not just coordinators but full-time teachers who are trying to balance the demands of the classroom and increasingly complex administrative, pastoral and coordination responsibilities. That is not a sustainable model at all, so it is no surprise that many of them experience excessive workloads, pressure on their mental health and an erosion of their work-life balance. That is not good for anybody, particularly the kids in the classroom whom they love and cherish.

I strongly support the motion's call for a review of SENCOs' workload and for serious consideration to be given to how we better structure and support their role, including by deciding whether, in some cases, a SENCO should be a non-teaching position. We also need to frame the discussion in a wider context. The pressures facing SENCOs are not happening in isolation. Rather, they are part of a broader system that is increasingly under strain. I agree with the UUP leader that there is a bigger picture to look at. We have to look at the issues from the very beginning of a child's life and at their engagement right through to the end of their education. We have to support them. Some type of cost analysis needs to be done. We increasingly talk about the cost to the system, but, in the long run, it is really a cost to society.

Shortcuts are never really what they seem when you are trying to make them. They can cost us all in the end.

We can see how strained the system has become. In the past five years alone, there have been over 10,000 recorded instances of work-related assaults on teachers and classroom assistants. The number of incidents has risen significantly year-on-year. Dozens of teachers have required time off work whilst suspensions have also risen by almost 70% since before the pandemic and are up 20% in the past two years. Those figures are really stark, and our schools are dealing with increasingly complex needs, as I said, without the level of support that is required. In that environment, SENCOs are not just coordinating provision but are operating at the front line of a system that is at breaking point. It is in that context that the ongoing SEN reforms are being implemented. To be clear, reform, of course, is necessary. No one in the Chamber would argue that the current system is working well and as it should work for children with special needs. However, reform must not only be well intentioned but deliverable in practice, and what we are hearing from many in the system, including SENCOs, school leaders and support services, is a growing concern about capacity and the ability to deliver to the needs of the most vulnerable.

As I said, we support the motion and we welcome the debate, but it is really action, Minister, that we are looking for.

Mrs Mason: I will start by thanking Michelle and Nick for bringing this really important issue to the Chamber, but I have to say that it is getting to the stage where SENCOs are coming to us and asking what the point is in raising these issues again and again if the Minister and the Education Authority are not prepared to listen and if the Health Minister is not even at the table. We could stand here today and list every single pressure facing our SENCOs: the workload, the lack of support, the constant firefighting and the barriers to getting help for children. Michelle outlined all those issues really well. The truth is that all of this has already been said time and again. It has been raised by principals, by teachers, by classroom assistants, by SENCOs and by the parents who are watching their children struggle. The question is no longer about what the problems are; the question is when will they listen?

What we are hearing from those on the ground is deeply alarming. SENCOs are at breaking point. They are not just raising concerns any more. They are pleading with the Education Authority and pleading with the Minister to reset, to listen and to make changes before more damage is done. This new system is stretching them to breaking point. We have already heard about recent research showing that nine out of 10 teachers are experiencing burnout, many of them pointing directly to the pressures of supporting children with additional needs. A SENCO workload survey that we heard about in Committee laid bare the reality of overwhelming paperwork, impossible workloads and the lack of very basic communication. Seventy-eight per cent feel poorly supported or not supported at all. Eighty-six per cent are considering leaving the role entirely. Let that sink in. The very people who we rely on the most are asking themselves whether they can keep going.

At the same time, I have been contacted by so many staff who are working in the Education Authority, particularly those in the local impact teams and in literacy support roles, and it is genuinely heartbreaking to listen to them. Those are skilled, committed professionals who should be out in schools helping children who are struggling to read. Instead, they are spending their time trying to navigate and, at times, work around a system that is failing them. They are pleading to get children who are in their care the support that they so desperately need or are sitting answering telephones, tied up in a system that they feel is failing children, and not just failing children but actively harming them. They feel blamed. They feel that they are being talked about as part of the problem. Let me be absolutely clear: this is not their fault. They are dedicated individuals working across the Education Authority, doing everything that they can in incredibly difficult circumstances. I have heard from them directly, and I know how hard it is for them. This is not a failure of people, it is failure of a system that they are being asked to operate in. Minister, no amount of spin in the Chamber is going to change that because I know what is going to come next: a list of actions and plans, and the familiar line that more money is needed. That is just not going to wash with SENCOs anymore. They are just words. This is about the reality on the ground, and the reality is that the system is stretched to breaking point and the people holding it together are crying out for help.

The Children's Law Centre issued a clear and unequivocal warning that the reforms risk moving things in the wrong direction. That cannot be ignored. Minister, I do not believe for one second that you want those children to come to harm or that you want SENCOs and EA staff pushed to the edge. I do believe, however, that your ego has clouded your judgement because when every single voice on the ground is calling for you to pause, reset and listen, and you continue on regardless, that is not leadership.

Minister, you spoke in the Chamber this morning about wanting to work with Sinn Féin. Now is your chance; prove it. It is time to face reality. Reset, listen and please work with all of us. Work with the SENCOs. Let the ego, bluster and deflection go. Work with everyone before more damage is done.

Miss McAllister: I am glad to speak to the motion, and my focus will be primarily on the unique and special circumstances in my constituency of North Belfast. I do not claim that all the issues in North Belfast are unique but there are some circumstances there, and actually good work that I want to highlight.

Coming from a family of eight children, seven of whom are teachers or classroom assistants, a week does not go by when I do not get complaints around dinner tables, in phone calls or in texts about needs in their schools — special schools, primary schools and secondary schools across the spectrum. I seem to be the voice that they go to to complain, ask questions or seek signposting for where they should go to next alongside their colleagues, too. So often, we have already see the issues in our constituency offices. Those issues are often brought by parents, and I want to focus on that. SENCOs have to have a relationship with parents, too, particularly when advocating for or on behalf of children's individual educational learning pathways. It is that relationship with parents that often brings them to our door to ask for our help because schools are often physically unable to facilitate the entirety of an individualised plan. That is not because SENCOs or teachers are not trying but because they do not have the capacity.

In one ward in North Belfast, one child in 20 has a care order. That means that they are under the care of the state in a residential care home, in foster care or in kinship care. Once they recognise that the designated teacher for child safeguarding is usually a different person from the SENCO, they must collaborate and work closely with the SENCOs. We have had circumstances in North Belfast where SENCOs and principals have taken children to their own homes because foster care placement could not be found for them. Every one of those children has complex and additional special educational needs. That is just a snapshot of one story, but it can be replicated across many schools in North Belfast because it is an area of multiple deprivation that sees more complex needs.

Primary and secondary schools, even in my constituency, are often different, and we are very lucky that we sent our children to a school that has a full-time SENCO. I have noticed the difference that it makes for parents and children, yet that teacher is still under extreme pressure and cannot get through her day without using additional hours to speak to parents, ensuring that intervention in children's plans happens where it is needed.

I come back to the one annual intervention needed by the Education Authority that has been a problem for SENCOs and parents in reviewing the plans. However, it has worked in some circumstances to change the system.

I know, Minister, that you have been or are going to Belfast Boys' Model School. I think I heard you speak about it in the past: I am sorry if I am wrong. That school has implemented a different way of working that works for their children and the kids who go to that school. However, just a short way down the road in other schools in North Belfast — I think of Blessed Trinity College — the same system does not work. Therefore, you have to allow teachers to have that individual discretion that meets their pupils' needs, but that just means more work, not that — yes?

Mr Martin: I will wait until the red light goes on. There we go.

I thank the Member for allowing me to intervene. She makes reference to the Boys' Model, which is very forward-thinking in how it deals with SEN in Northern Ireland — one of the first schools to adapt the use of classroom assistants so that they were not all in one classroom. Does she accept that some creative and supportive thinking about how we deliver SEN and how we best support children with special educational needs is the way forward in Northern Ireland?

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

Miss McAllister: Thank you.

I can partially agree, but, if you had just listened to what I highlighted afterwards, I said that there are other schools in my constituency where the model of care that they use in the Belfast Boys' Model School does not work. It is based on the individual needs that the SENCO can address, working alongside the parents. I agree that rushed reform that overwhelms the system, overwhelms the very people who provide it and concerns the parents who worry about it — they come to us, and I am sure that they come to you — is not better than having no reform. We need to get it right; that is really important. It is about that individual need. It is really a sad indictment. We have moved to a very paperwork-based system because SENCOs are simply overstretched. They will tell you, as they tell us every day when they are in contact, "That is not delivering to the need. That is not being child-centred. Focusing on the bureaucracy and the paperwork is not meeting the needs of all the children who need to have that special additional care in our schools."

I am happy to support the motion and to see reform of special educational needs provision in the future. However, it must be a reform that works and delivers and is child-centred and based on the needs of the child now and in the future.

Mr Gaston: No one in the House will need persuaded of the importance of special educational needs coordinators. SENCOs sit at the centre of our education system's ability to deliver for some of the most vulnerable children in Northern Ireland. In most of our schools, SENCOs are not operating in a dedicated role; they are full-time teachers with full-time classroom responsibilities. On top of that, they are expected to manage complex caseloads of pupils with statements and pupils with individual educational plans, liaise with parents, coordinate with external agencies, oversee safeguarding concerns and, in many cases, act as de facto welfare leads in the school. That is not sustainable. It is no surprise that we hear more and more about burnout, pressure and the risk of losing experienced staff from the system altogether.

Teachers tell me that, in some classrooms, there are multiple pupils with statements and many more with additional needs but without formal statements, all requiring support. That is the context in which SENCOs operate. So, yes, a review of workload is necessary. Yes, we should consider whether, in some cases, the role should be non-teaching, but let us be clear: this cannot be approached with a one-size-fits-all mentality. Workload varies by school size, level of need and complexity of cases. A blanket policy imposed from the centre will miss the reality on the ground. What is needed is flexibility based on need and properly resourced.

There is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of the current policy. On the one hand, we acknowledge the rising need; on the other, there are proposals that would reduce the number of one-to-one classroom assistants. You cannot acknowledge increased need but reduce support and expect outcomes to improve. Ultimately, it is the child who will pay the price.

Before the debate, I talked to a parent whose child receives one-to-one support in the classroom that has resulted in remarkable progress in the past 12 months. That followed a number of years when, even with one-to-one support, their daughter struggled significantly. You cannot ignore the reality that there are children who need that support and that its life-changing benefits may take years to manifest themselves.

Classroom assistants are an integral part of the support system alongside SENCOs and teachers, yet many classroom assistants face disparities in pay that do not reflect the vital role that they play. If we are serious about supporting children with special educational needs, we must be serious about valuing the staff who deliver that support day in, day out. You cannot build a system on goodwill alone. Fair pay is not an optional extra; it is a foundation.

I previously tabled an amendment calling for classroom assistants to receive pay over the summer months. The Education Minister supported that amendment, yet here we are at the end of April. Many classroom assistants will get only two weeks' pay this month because of the Easter break. They look forward to the summer months, when they will be paid at the end of June and will not see another pay packet until the end of September. No one should be expected to live like that, yet classroom assistants face that reality again this year. It is not good enough; it needs to change. If, as the Minister said this morning, the issue needs to be addressed on a UK-wide basis, I trust that he will ensure that the Executive actively pursue it.

Mr Carroll: I am not too dissimilar to Miss McAllister in that I come from a big family, being one of seven, three of whom are teachers — the WhatsApp group is popping off — so I just declare that as an interest along with having worked in SEN.

The previous motion was about the crisis in the dental service and how underfunded and broken that system is. As night follows day, we are now talking about the crisis in education and in the SEN sector specifically. Just like that, it is, unfortunately, in crisis. Just as the dental service crisis was not caused by dentists or healthcare workers, the crisis in education was not caused by education workers, SENCOs, classroom assistants or even by parents or guardians who dared to fight for every last resource for their loved ones — who here would not do that?

There is a crisis, though, as I said, and a failure to properly invest in SEN school settings. A vivid and stark example of that, which was referred to in passing by the Member opposite, is the fact that school staff are forced to fundraise outside their contracted hours in a voluntary capacity to obtain basic equipment for what are usually but not always SEN schools. They have to fundraise to provide resources for children to access the developmental equipment that they need or for recreational purposes. That is appalling and disgraceful but shines a light on how the sector is left behind and forgotten about. I ask the Minister how much energy and time is being invested by those workers to fight — to fundraise — to protect and stand up for their schools instead of doing the job that they, as classroom assistants and SENCOs, are paid to do and are best placed to do.

I pay tribute to our SENCOs and everyone working in education — mainstream and special educational needs. They are managing a crisis and holding things together whilst doing all that they can to support our young people, educating them and providing the additional support that we have heard about. They cannot continue to do that in the context of budget cuts, mounting workloads and schools having a cap on the number of children and young people who can be referred to educational psychologists each year, meaning that it is up to the SENCOs to decide who needs support more than others. That is a shocking position for them to be in.

The crisis will be made worse if the Minister gets his way on the SEND reform agenda. It is not just me who says that: the Children's Law Centre (CLC), teaching unions and children's rights groups have come out with an extraordinary intervention, showing once again how out of touch the Minister is. I appeal to him to listen to the experts. They have said that he is going down the wrong path, and that needs to change. Schools are given responsibility that they do not have the capacity or funding to meet, and the classroom assistants and SENCOs continue to be overworked and underpaid.

We have to challenge the Minister's attacks on one-to-one classroom assistants. That is what they are: attacks. A whole-school approach looks great on paper and sounds great in a ministerial speech, but it is not a substitute for individually specified provision. Parents hold up classroom assistant support as the gold standard for good reason: it works and has supported them. For many children and young people, their classroom assistant is the only thing that prevents them from being entirely left behind by a broken and underfunded education system. Minister, you have got it wrong. Reverse your plans and do not proceed down this path.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call the Minister of Education to respond to the debate.

Minister, you have up to 15 minutes.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Member for tabling the motion, which I will support. I welcome the opportunity to respond to the debate and record my appreciation for the critical role that special educational needs coordinators play in our schools. I have witnessed at first hand the dedication and professionalism of that vital workforce, and the positive impact that it has on the lives of young people with special educational needs not just in my role as Education Minister but in my 16 years of having been an MLA in Lagan Valley and, previously, having served as a councillor from 2005. I know very well the importance of SENCOs to our schools and the important role that is played by our classroom assistants. I will therefore take the opportunity to commend the remarkable work that they do, often in exceptionally challenging circumstances. The SENCO role is, without question, highly demanding and has become significantly more challenging in recent years, as rising numbers of children with special educational needs coincide with pressures created by increasingly constrained budgets. In the face of those pressures, however, SENCOs continue to show remarkable resilience and dedication, working tirelessly to ensure that the children and young people in their schools receive the support that they need.

It is not enough for me to stand here and offer words of thanks to SENCOs for their hard work and commitment, when so many have spoken so candidly about the real and pressing impact that unsustainable workloads have on their personal and family lives, their mental health and their overall well-being. I want to give clear assurances that those concerns are heard and that they are being taken seriously. Urgent action is required, and my officials are working closely in partnership with the Education Authority to deliver meaningful and sustainable solutions. In May 2025, I appointed an independent panel to undertake a comprehensive review of teacher workload, showing my determination to address the issue. Earlier today, I published an action plan that will translate that panel's recommendations into practical and deliverable measures that support well-being, professional autonomy and sustainable workload practices across schools. Alongside that, the forthcoming Special Educational Needs (SEN) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2026 will place a clear statutory duty on boards of governors to ensure that SENCOs are provided with the protected non-teaching time necessary to fulfil their role effectively. That represents a significant and tangible strengthening of support for SENCOs across all schools.

Since 2021, the Department of Education has provided £92·5 million in funding to enable schools to release SENCOs from the timetable, thus allowing them dedicated time to prepare for the implementation of the new regulations, which include the introduction of personal learning plans. Newly appointed SENCOs are able to avail themselves of specialised SENCO induction training, which, they report, is highly valuable for building confidence, role clarity and a practical understanding of SEN processes. Furthermore, last month, the EA delivered dedicated leadership, management and health and well-being training for primary-school SENCOs. In addition to the existing support that is available, the EA has developed an enhanced package for schools that are establishing specialist provisions. Central to that package is dedicated SENCO release time of one month to stabilise the new provisions, with a further one day of release per month per class on an ongoing basis. Each school will also receive £10,000 to cover administrative responsibilities, which will free up SENCOs to focus on pupils rather than on paperwork.

To strengthen whole-school SEN capacity and to reduce reliance on SENCOs, up to 20% of mainstream teachers and up to five classroom assistants will receive targeted SEN training, supported by up to five days' release. Each setting will be supported by the EA specialist provision service through a dedicated advisory teacher, universal and targeted training and specialist input for individual pupils, where required. Those actions represent a further step forward, building on the extensive and ongoing work that the EA has progressed in order to streamline SEN processes and reduce the administrative burden on schools. That is the result of listening and then acting.

The local impact teams that were introduced in September 2025 were designed with the intention of removing barriers to services, reducing unnecessary bureaucracy and promoting more equitable access to support. Central to that work has been the introduction of a single request for involvement portal, which enables SENCOs to engage with EA services through one streamlined process. SENCOs were closely involved in shaping and testing the portal to ensure that it reflected the realities of day-to-day practice. Their ongoing feedback continues to inform implementation through the SENCO continuous reference group, which focuses on identifying strengths and challenges with the local impact teams and with educational psychology service models, thus ensuring that practitioners remain central to the wider programme of SEN reform.

Through the SEN reform agenda, I have articulated the need for sustained and meaningful investment in our education workforce. The central action in the SEN delivery plan is the design and delivery of a dedicated leadership programme for SENCOs. I am pleased to advise that the initial scoping work is already under way. It is looking carefully at existing training provision and best practice in other jurisdictions. The next phase will involve a comprehensive co-design process with SENCOs themselves, which will ensure that the programme is firmly grounded in lived experience and delivers practically meaningful training that responds directly to the challenges that they face.

Alongside that, a key strand of the EA's enhanced support model will focus on how the SENCO role itself can be better supported and strengthened. In some schools, that may involve establishing the SENCO as a dedicated role that is free from teaching responsibilities, enabling SENCOs to focus fully on supporting children and young people with special educational needs. In other settings, it may mean developing a wider skilled team that is trained across the five areas of special educational needs so that the SENCO is properly supported and able to balance leadership responsibilities and some teaching commitment. That flexible approach recognises the diversity of school contexts while ensuring that SENCOs are given the support that they need to carry out their role effectively.

The EA is consulting on the enhanced support model. It is essential that that work be shaped by the voices of those with lived experience. That means listening carefully to parents and carers, to children and young people and to those working every day in our schools. Some Members have called for a pause in the programme of SEN reform, yet some of the same voices that have asked for a pause frequently argue that progress on SEN reform is too slow. The two positions cannot be reconciled.

Mr Sheehan: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Givan: Sinéad McLaughlin challenged me at the very end of her contribution when she said that it is action that is needed. That is contrary to calling for a pause in the process. Mr Sheehan wants me to give way.

Mr Sheehan: I thank the Minister for giving way. We all saw the recent letter and statement from the Children's Law Centre. The Children's Law Centre is a go-to organisation for public representatives because it has the most expertise in the field of special educational needs. It is widely regarded and held in high esteem, and it is an expert in the field. The letter and statement that it released were supported by many other stakeholders, as well as the trade unions. Is it beyond the wit of all those organisations, yourself and the EA to come together and plot a way through this, rather than having disagreement? I accept that you want to do the best for children with SEN; I have no doubt about that, but so does the Children's Law Centre, and it is an expert in the field. One of the issues is that you have not met the Children's Law Centre. Can you come together with that organisation and the trade unions to work out a way that is acceptable to everyone?

Mr Givan: I can assure the Member that the Department and the EA will meet the Children's Law Centre. They are arranging to meet in the coming weeks, and that will help to address the concerns that the Children's Law Centre raised. It will also ensure that there is a shared and accurate understanding of the enhanced support model. However, the Children's Law Centre's claims that the legal duties are being transferred to schools as a result of the new model are not correct. The legal responsibility for the delivery of special educational needs provision will continue to rest with the Education Authority, and any changes to the provision will be clearly and transparently set out in a statement of special educational needs. We will meet the Children's Law Centre, and we will provide the clarity, but the claim that it made is not accurate, and the meeting will help to clarify that. If there are other concerns that my officials and the EA can help address for the Children's Law Centre, we are more than happy to do that.

Mr Sheehan: I thank the Minister again for giving way. It is clear that there are disagreements between the Department and the Children's Law Centre about the legality of some of the reforms that have been proposed. That has to be an issue that can be easily resolved by you and the Children's Law Centre coming together and working through what you say is legal and what it says is not legal. How much does it take to resolve that? I just cannot see how it is an issue that can create a blockage in the system.

Mr Givan: It should not be insurmountable, and that is why the meeting is being organised. We are more than happy to take on board those concerns. However, we know that the status quo is failing to deliver consistently good outcomes for children and young people with special educational needs. I do not believe that Members can, in good conscience, argue for change while simultaneously resisting the reforms that are required to deliver it. The number of children with a statement of SEN is increasing year-on-year, and Members know that. The funding requirement is growing by £5 million every month, and that is also not sustainable, particularly when we know that there are better ways to deliver support. I assure Members that every change that is being made is firmly grounded in the best interests of children and young people, and it will be evidence-based. It will deliver clear and measurable improvement, and it will remain fully compliant within the legal framework.

Therefore, while the implementation of the enhanced support model is planned to commence in September 2026, it will be initially taken forward with 150 schools that we know are already using alternative models of support. The Member for North Belfast Nuala McAllister referred to the Boys' Model School, which is one of those schools. She, rightly, highlighted how the school had been pioneering when it changed the way in which it supported children with special educational needs. It meant moving away from the default position of direct one-to-one support, and it was about providing better support for the whole school and not just in one particular way. It speaks to the challenge when others would say that retaining the status quo is the best way, when we already know that 150 schools are taking forward alternative approaches to address the issue, and the Boys' Model School is one of them.

Do I have 15 minutes, Mr Deputy Speaker?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Yes.

Mr Givan: I apologise to the Member who is seeking to make an intervention. I want to close out my remarks. If I have time, I will bring him back in.

The approaches have been developed collaboratively, working closely with parents and the staff who know their schools and pupils best. Crucially, they are working. We must learn from that success and ensure that effective practice is shared and implemented more widely, including in the school in which the Member said it was not happening. Over the coming years, wider roll-out will proceed on a phased and responsive basis, aligned to individual school readiness and designed to ensure that schools, staff and parents are given sufficient time and support to embed change effectively and sustainably.

In closing, I recognise that this is a demanding and uncertain time for many across our education system. Change, even when it is necessary and well-intentioned, can feel unsettling, particularly when it affects roles and workloads. It is right that we acknowledge that reality. We must also be realistic that meaningful change takes time. It cannot, and should not, happen overnight. However, I am confident that SENCOs will begin to see that their voices are being heard, that their concerns are being taken seriously and that positive change is beginning to take shape as a result.

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

Mr Mathison: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank all Members who have contributed to the debate. There has been a really constructive tone in the Chamber. We have landed in a rare space where there seems to be agreement, at least on the substantive issues in the motion. The conversation expanded into the wider issues around SEN reform, where there might not be complete alignment, but, even on those issues, as far as I could tell, there was a sense that everyone in the Chamber acknowledges that there is a need to come together. If there are concerns about the legalities of reform or the pace of change, it seems that there is an openness to engage. I certainly welcome that.

Our motion was deliberately narrow. It is not that all of the other issues that Members wanted to raise are not important. We had a range of issues raised in the debate. Peter Martin raised his concerns about maintaining the status quo with regard to how we deliver SEN services; Jon Burrows looked at the rising level of complexity in and demand for SEN services; and other Members highlighted the crucial role of classroom assistants. I could keep going on the different issues raised and levels of emphasis in the debate. I want to be clear: it is not that those issues are not important. We brought the motion because, to quote Peter Martin, if he does not mind, SENCOs are, in many cases, "the glue" that holds the SEN services together in our schools. A SENCO is, as others have said, the "go-to person" in the school. They are also the go-to person for external agencies. You only need to spend a few minutes in the company of a group of SENCOs to hear the level of their dedication and insight into the complexity of needs in their school settings; their level of understanding of the challenges that parents face when navigating the system; their appetite; and their ability to engage with reform. However, you will also hear their realism about the level of challenge brought about by the current level of resources.

SENCOs are critical to any delivery of SEN services and reform, so our motion was deliberately narrow. We wanted to acknowledge the evidence that we heard at the Education Committee and the evidence that colleagues and I have heard from our local SENCO clusters, which have articulated so clearly the level of challenge they are facing and the level of pressure that they are under. The outworking of that is the concern that we have a workforce that is crucial to the system but feels that it is on the brink of being completely overwhelmed and not being able to cope. We hear schools say that when a SENCO vacancy comes up, nobody applies for it. It takes a serious level of arm-twisting to get people to take the role. SENCOs talk about being afraid to go off sick, because they worry about the impact that doing so would have on their school setting. We have SENCOs — I will not use names because they might get in trouble with their unions — who have said to me that they have a laugh when the phrase "action short of strike" is used, because, if there is one person in a school who cannot take action short of strike, it is a SENCO. The whole thing would fall apart around them if they did. That is an unsustainable picture.

The motion was narrow, but that is not to say that Alliance is not up for the debate on wider SEN reform: we absolutely are. I need to declare an interest, as my wife works for an organisation that was a co-signatory to the Children's Law Centre letter. There is a need for the system to engage with the concerns that have been raised, but we have a space where we can open up a constructive conversation. The consultation on the enhanced support model is still open, and, when it closes, that will be the appropriate time for the system to pause, take a breath, get the right stakeholders around the table, reflect on what comes through in the consultation, deal with concerns around legality, deal with the pace of change and ensure that we get all the key stakeholders pulling in the same direction. That is what I would like to see, because I do not think that a single person in the Assembly thinks that the system is currently fit for purpose. I do not think that a single person is articulating that we should change nothing. There may be different levels of emphasis on how we do that, but the need for change is vital, because our children who rely on SEN support services are being failed. We need to address that. I genuinely take hope from the debate, because there is a sense that all of us, whatever the different levels of emphasis might be, want to move in that direction.

Returning to the substantive content of the motion. I will record a couple of thank-yous to the SENCOs whom I have engaged with. I thank the cluster groups that I have engaged with, specifically those in Newtownards, north Down and Castlereagh, as well as the individual SENCOs who have contacted me to share their experiences. That engagement has been absolutely invaluable, as has their honesty and willingness to engage. Sometimes, those engagements have felt like therapy sessions. It is a workforce that really feels on the brink, and I do not say that flippantly. SENCOs often refer to those engagements in those terms, and I know that my colleague Michelle and other members of the Education Committee who have engaged with their local SENCO workforce feel that those engagements have been absolutely critical in understanding the ongoing pressure in our schools.

Mrs Mason: Thanks to the Member for giving way. Will the Member agree that it is vital that SENCOs get release time to work on all of the extra pressure that they have? Will he also agree that school leaders need assurances that they will have an earmarked budget next year for SENCOs who currently have that release and that will continue? We hear concerns from a lot of principals that the extended schools programme, nurture and other things are being cut, and they fear that SENCO release time is going to be next.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for the intervention. Yes, it is absolutely essential that the finances are put in place to ensure that the appropriate level of release is delivered. It is really important that we get assurances around that.

Mr Martin: Will the Member give way?

Mr Mathison: Give me one moment, and I will give way.

Anyone who engages with groups of SENCOs will know that the disparity in the approaches taken in schools is striking, and, in schools where the needs are clearly at a higher level and more complex, some of those SENCOs get less release time. A lot of that is to do with the budgetary position of the school, and schools should not be placed in that position.

Mr Martin: I thank the Chair of the Education Committee for giving way. The Member for South Down raised a question about budgets and ensuring that the funding is there for SENCO release time. Will the Chair agree that that is not in the vires of the Education Minister to deliver? It is in the vires of the Executive to deliver, so the Executive have to put in place the funding that the Minister needs to carry that out.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for the intervention. We get into dangerous territory when we have Ministers saying to other Ministers, "You need to surrender your budget so that I can do this thing". We could go round in a vicious circle with that all day long, and every Minister would make the case. It is for the Education Minister to make his case to the Finance Minister for the investment that he needs, and I hope that the Finance Minister would be sympathetic to that.

I am conscious that I am short on time, so I want to put this point on record. Claire McGowan and Anita Stewart, who gave evidence to the Education Committee, have been referenced. They did that very bravely. A lot of people would be very nervous about coming to a public forum like the Education Committee to effectively raise concerns about the working conditions that they are operating in and put that on the public record with their employer — the EA and the Department — watching. They deserve huge credit. Their engagement with the Committee has led to a positive engagement with the Department on the issues, so they really deserve credit.

As time is short, I turn to the asks in the motion. While it is nice to have the warm feeling in the room when everybody agrees — when we debate our non-binding motions, everybody can do that — I am a little concerned at the Minister's comments. There was no specific commitment to a review of SENCO workload, and I would like to have heard that. I would like to pursue that through Committee and other channels, because SENCOs were really clear when we engaged with and consulted them on the text of the motion and what their challenges were. They were clear on the sense that there needed to be a real system overview of all the different factors that were coming to bear and impacting on their workload, how they can be mitigated and how SENCOs can be better supported. I would like to have heard a commitment on that front, and we will continue to look for that.

I think and hope that SENCOs will take heart from the debate today. I do not suggest in any way that a non-binding motion will solve anybody's problems overnight, but at least we have agreement. That gives us a platform to push for accountability to ensure that there is delivery on addressing the SENCO workload. A much wider debate is needed. We are coming to that critical point: when the rubber hits the road, what will it really look like when we want to deliver SEN reform? I am clear: we will not deliver meaningful SEN reform and will not meet the needs of children unless we support SENCOs to do their jobs. They are critical to the whole system, and we need to support them.

Miss McAllister: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I apologise: I should have declared an interest in that my partner works at the Children's Law Centre. We referenced the centre many times, and I neglected to declare an interest in my speech.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you for raising that. That can be noted.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The next item of business in the Order Paper is the Adjournment. As Members were advised earlier, the Speaker was notified that the Member will not be speaking to the Adjournment topic today.