Official Report: Monday 11 May 2026

Mr Speaker: I inform Members that the Hospital Parking Charges Bill has received Royal Assent. The Hospital Parking Charges Act (Northern Ireland) 2026 became law on 6 May 2026, and it is Chapter 4.

Mr Speaker: Timothy Gaston has been given leave to make a statement on the judgement in the Dillon judicial review by the Supreme Court that fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24.

Mr Gaston: I greatly welcome the Supreme Court judgement in the Dillon case. It was a case of real constitutional significance that puts the brakes on those who seek to expand the remit of article 2. It rebuffs the absurd contention that rights in Northern Ireland should be those evolving in the EU, not in our United Kingdom. It also leaves policy in this Building exposed. I directly challenge those who sit on the Assembly Commission. Stormont operates an illegal toilet policy that permits trans invaders to self-identify and use the toilet of their choice, even though the Building facilitates schoolchildren almost daily.

The judgement is also a particularly welcome reality check for the activist Equality Commission, which has sought to argue, by way of article 2, that the definition of a woman changes when they cross the Irish Sea. That absurd position trashed the rights of women to privacy and safety in single-sex spaces. It was always logically and legally dubious to say that a man became a woman when he got off the ferry in Larne. As the Bible puts it:

After Thursday's judgement, all the waffle on the subject that the Equality Commission seeks to peddle as guidance to people across Northern Ireland has been exposed for what it is: activist-motivated tripe. Yet it does not even accept that. Reacting to the judgement, it said that it would take time to consider its implications. The truth is that it has no answer to the fact that its aggressive, anti-women overreach has been exposed. Its guidance, judgement and agenda have been unmasked. It is time that its guidance was withdrawn and to bring an end to blindly following woke ideology. The women of Northern Ireland deserve an apology. The commission members should resign or, indeed, be forced from office.

Mr Buckley: The Supreme Court judgement is, no doubt, a landmark judgement for Northern Ireland. It goes to the very nub of who governs this place, whose laws we are accustomed to and what direction we follow. The Dillon judgement has proven to be a costly correction to those who have attempted at every turn to use article 2 of the Windsor framework to undermine UK sovereignty and lawmaking and to undermine common sense.

What did the judgement do? It stated in law that, for the purposes of rights, the given narrative from activist lawyers and activist organisations that attempted to use an expansionist view of article 2 to apply European rights in Northern Ireland over the head of UK law was wrong. That is important for a number of reasons. It is important that we examine the issues by which certain people in the legal profession, the Equality Commission and the Human Rights Commission attempted to use that for the purpose of blocking potential important legislation in Northern Ireland that would ensure that we could control our borders and put to bed the blight of illegal and uncontrolled immigration. When it comes to the definition of "gender", my goodness, it is a landmark ruling for common sense. Those who have used their broad interpretation of article 2 have denied a Supreme Court ruling to Northern Ireland that was as basic as to say that, for the purposes of gender, there are but two: male and female. Those organisations now have to front up or leave the stage. Common sense must be applied in lawmaking in Northern Ireland. The judgement also goes to the heart of the legacy issue in Northern Ireland, where there is still an intent by some people in the House and outside it to ensure that those who served the country with distinction, put on the uniform, defended liberty and defended civilians are no longer unjustly brought before the courts.

The Prime Minister must go further than just recognising the judgement: he must ensure that we end EU law supremacy in Northern Ireland. We have clarity on article 2. It is high time that the UK asserted itself over not only legal matters but economic matters.

Miss Hargey: Last week's judgement at the British Supreme Court was a disappointing result for families who have campaigned for decades for truth and justice. The judgement has caused them grave concern and will make their job harder in the search for truth and justice. It is clear that the British Establishment is closing ranks to protect national security interests by way of protecting British state forces. That judgement will undoubtedly be followed by other legal challenges and potentially a challenge to the European Court, leading to further delay and trauma to families who have already been campaigning for decades.

The judgement on the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR) is another area of major concern. The British Government's own acknowledgement that the ICRIR needed to be replaced is reflected in the legacy Bill that is going through Westminster at the moment, where the intent is to replace it with the Legacy Commission.

That builds on the recent review of the ICRIR, which highlighted severe flaws at a leadership level around culture and governance issues. That is also reflected by the fact that most families here are not engaging with the ICRIR, despite its best efforts. To command the confidence of families, any legacy process must be independent, victim-centred, human rights-compliant and free from political interference or the abuse of national security restrictions. Sinn Féin will continue to stand with families throughout the process.

Ms Egan: On behalf of the Alliance Party, I will put a few remarks on record regarding the Dillon judgement, which relates to the compatibility of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) with the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. I am sure that all across the Chamber recognise that that continues to be an incredibly complex matter. It is important that all relevant stakeholders take time to consider the implications of the judgement fully. Alliance recognises that the successful appeal will be of great concern to many victims and survivors today, and my thoughts are first and foremost with them as we navigate the next steps.

The ICRIR is not fit for purpose. The case for a clean break is just as strong today as it was last week. It is noted, of course, that, to some extent, the UK Government have already accepted that by virtue of the new legislation that they are taking through. It is vital that the new Troubles Bill create a fully human rights-compliant process for legacy investigations that is capable of winning the trust and confidence of all victims and survivors. That is the only way to deliver the truth and justice that the families deserve.

Alliance has long argued that the Conservatives' proposed Troubles amnesty was an affront to victims and survivors, and that has been further validated. Moving forward, it has never been clearer that a successful approach to legacy will be centred on reconciliation, facilitating the pursuit of justice and information recovery in a fair, transparent and equal manner.

Dr Aiken: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to talk on the matter. Article 2 and article 2 compliance has always been a matter of considerable difficulty with the Windsor framework. The Windsor framework was designed primarily to be a trade deal. It was designed to make sure that there would be free movement across the rest of our country and to remove all the barriers to trade.

Right from the beginning, the Ulster Unionist Party questioned why two unelected quangos — the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (NIHRC) and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland (ECNI) — would be put in a position to set themselves up as the self-appointed guardians of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement. They are not, and they never were. The fact that they were given agency to do that by both political parties and by what I can only call the "cult" of the lawyer and the lawfare-type organisations that seem to be around here is an absolute disgrace.

The Supreme Court has spoken, and that is appropriate. What is more, the Supreme Court has made clear its view on that degree of activism and that degree of pushing the envelope on the boundary being done at the taxpayer's expense. We must remember who pays for those quangos: as taxpayers, we do. It is beyond time that those quangos were investigated properly to see what they do with the moneys that they have. Why they remain under the same leadership when the Supreme Court has clearly knocked down their approaches I do not know, but they are unaccountable. They cannot be allowed to continue in that process.

The Supreme Court of our nation has spoken. It has laid the limits. It is beyond time that both those quangos were brought well and truly under heel and, if necessary, got rid of, because they are not doing what they were designed to do.

Mr Brett: The highest court in the land has ruled on what the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland already knew: a man is a man, a woman is a woman, and immigration policy is set by the Westminster Government, not faceless bureaucrats in Brussels. When I walked into the Chamber today, I thought that I was attending a wake: the ruling is a defeat for those who have been protocol cheerleaders; those who have been rigorous implementers; and those who took the word of faceless organisations ahead of common sense.

As a member of the Executive Office Committee, I make it clear on behalf of my party that we expect the immediate appearance of the chief commissioner at our Committee to answer questions. It is not their budget that they have wasted on ongoing legal fights but money that belongs to hard-pressed taxpayers in Northern Ireland. It is money that should have been spent on our hospitals and roads but, instead, was wasted by political campaigners who were more interested in protecting woke ideology than in biological fact.

The UK Government can no longer hide behind the Windsor framework and the Northern Ireland protocol to deal with illegal immigration in Northern Ireland. The law is clear: immigration policy, which aims to stop the illegal arrival of people on small boats, is set at Westminster. Those who come to the country and have no interest in adding to its wealth but, rather, want to benefit from it have no place in Northern Ireland. It is now time that we take a UK-wide approach to immigration that protects families here.

The Supreme Court has spoken. There can be no ambiguity, and there can be no questions. There is no need for the Equality Commission and the Human Rights Commission or any other faceless organisation to read the judgement. The judgement is clear: they are wrong. They have wasted public money, and it is now time for every one of them to consider their position.

Mr McGlone: I will start by making an observation: only the TUV could reduce a complex Supreme Court decision to a toilet in the Assembly. Seriously?

The Supreme Court has narrowed aspects of article 2 protections. The judgement must not displace fundamental human rights commitments that underpin the Good Friday Agreement, and it will be for the Attorney General to scrutinise the decision. Human rights were never an optional extra in our peace settlement; they are central to building trust, confidence and parity of esteem in the North. The SDLP has always believed that rights protection must be practical, enforceable and accessible to ordinary citizens, particularly victims and families, and there will understandably be some concern that the scope of post-Brexit safeguards has been interpreted more narrowly than many had anticipated.

The case underlines once again the need for a comprehensive bill of rights for Northern Ireland, as envisaged in the Good Friday Agreement. We must avoid any drift towards weakening rights protection through constitutional ambiguity or political expediency. Victims and survivors in particular deserve legal certainty, transparency and confidence that their rights will be protected, regardless of changing political circumstances.

The broader challenge now is to ensure that Brexit-related arrangements do not result in any diminution of rights for people in Northern Ireland. The peace process succeeded because it recognised that rights, equality and the rule of law are stabilising forces in a divided society. The Supreme Court has clarified the law, but it has not ended the wider political and moral debate on rights protection and legacy issues in particular. Our focus should remain on protecting the integrity of all strands of the Good Friday Agreement, including its explicit human rights commitments.

Mr Speaker: Sinéad Ennis has been given leave to make a statement on the results of the Scottish election and the Welsh election that fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24.

Ms Ennis: First, I send congratulations from the Assembly Chamber to the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru on their historic election success over the weekend. For the first time in history, we could have three nationalist, pro-independence First Ministers leading the devolved institutions. The election results are not just a reaction to the desire and clear necessity for self-determination but a damning indictment of successive British Governments, who have abandoned working people, decimated public services and put vested interests above communities.

More and more people are seeing that the Union is not working for them. It is no surprise that the DUP, 10 years after the disastrous referendum on Brexit, which it championed and still supports today, has been at pains over the past number of days to diminish and talk down the enormity and significance of the elections. The DUP increasingly wants to fight the battles of the past, because it has no vision for the future.

However, people here want better for themselves and their families, and Sinn Féin will continue to offer a better way and a better future. We will continue to give people hope; hope for a future beyond the constraints of Westminster, where decisions are made without thought of, or regard for, the people and communities here. We look forward to working with progressive Governments and parties in Wales and Scotland, and we will build on existing relationships as we continue to build momentum towards constitutional change and, ultimately, something better for all our people here.

Mr Frew: I, too, rise to discuss the election campaigns and results over the past few days, which prove that we are indeed at a seminal moment and that the plates are shifting in British democracy. They are shifting back to the people, who have found their voice. Successive Governments have not listened, and this Government are not listening. They have never listened to the people. They are squeezing us with further taxation, destroying farm businesses, eroding free speech, pushing mandatory digital IDs on us all and carrying on the Tories' damaging, flawed practices and policies, including those relating to illegal immigration. The Government are not working for the people, and the people have responded.

Nationalism will grasp any thin thread that it can, but the failure is there for all to see. In Wales, 56% of people voted for pro-Union parties. In Scotland, 58% voted for pro-Union parties, and 41% voted for nationalist parties. The SNP vote fell by 9·2%, and the overall nationalist vote in Scotland dropped by 8%. Nationalism is at its ugliest when it makes things up.

I am proud to hear the people speaking with one voice. We are watching and experiencing something dramatic among the British people: they will no longer tolerate bad governance from whatever quarter, be it the red of Labour or the blue of the Tories. We will see massive changes in the forthcoming years. It also gives voters hope that their voice can make a difference and shows them that they should get registered and vote, because they see that one household or one voter can make a difference to how they are governed and that they need to be governed far better than they have been in the past decades.

I rejoice when I hear the people speak and see this great country's democratic practice. It is for the voters — the people of Britain — to decide how they are governed best.

Ms Bradshaw: In the wake of last week's elections in Great Britain, we have seen the predictable rush to the microphones. Some are heralding the results in Scotland and Wales as a seismic shift, a death knell for the Union or an inevitable surge towards independence. Others are noting, as we have just heard, that pro-Union parties collectively received the majority of the votes and claiming that little has changed. However, as we look at the data, which we must do in the context of our constituents in Northern Ireland, it is vital that we meet those headlines with a firm sense of reality.

We must remember that a significant proportion of last week's electoral map was defined by local council elections in London and different parts of England. Local government elections are about bins, planning, leisure facilities and other vital services that keep a community breathing, while elections to the devolved Administrations of Scotland and Wales are about the big issues such as health and education. To extrapolate from a handful of seats and say that there is a definite mandate for a constitutional outcome one way or another is a leap of logic. It does a disservice to the voters who cast their ballots last week based on their neighbourhoods, not the status of their borders.

I place on record my congratulations to our Lib Dem colleagues in Great Britain. They had a terrific election result.

In Northern Ireland, we know all too well the exhaustion that comes from viewing every election through the prism of a constitutional headcount. When we obsess over whether Scotland is going or Wales is wavering, we fall into the same old trap of ignoring bread-and-butter issues. Indeed, if the local election results in England are to be analysed at a national level, what we are seeing is a call for action to improve people's lives, which politics across the UK is failing to do.

The Alliance Party is clear that the constitutional future of any nation is a matter for its people, but it cannot and should not be the only matter that is up for debate at election time. We cannot feed a family or fix a health waiting list with a flag, regardless of which flag that is. Our mandate is to make Northern Ireland work. The people whom we represent, whether they identify as unionist, as nationalist or, like a growing number of us who choose both, as other, are not asking us for a running commentary on the internal politics of Plaid Cymru or the Scottish National Party. They are asking us whether the Executive will survive in order to ensure that our schools receive the funding that they need; whether reform of our health service will happen; and whether we can build an economy that is sustainable, prosperous and inclusive. As legislators, our job is not to break up but to build up.

Mr Burrows: It is somewhat a sign of Sinn Féin's desperation that it is searching for more evidence of its false momentum towards Irish unity by looking at the election results in Scotland and Wales. It is false because, of course, the majority of people who cast their vote did so for pro-Union parties. Across the United Kingdom, in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, we know that we are better together. Here is a reality: Sinn Féin needs to keep doing that because its promised project of Irish unity failed. It did not happen in the years after the Belfast Agreement. We have had so many different dates: 2016, 2025 and 2030. I suspect that we will be here in 50 years' time, with relatively youthful Sinn Féin Members saying that, in 2060, a border poll will be just around the corner and just within reach. Here is a reality: most people in Northern Ireland want us to get on with making things work. This is a distraction from the fact that Sinn Féin does not make things work. Its contribution in Economy has cost us jobs. Man landed on the moon in 1969, but, in Infrastructure, Sinn Féin cannot deliver smooth roads in 2026. The rates Reval was disastrous. Every ministry that Sinn Féin holds is a disaster. Deflection, deflection, deflection.

Here is another reality: the people of the United Kingdom stand together. What you are hearing is that people want change from the same politics and the obsession with pet projects like constitutional change. People are wondering about the cost of filling up their car; the cost of their car insurance; the cost of hiring workers; the cost of putting their heating on; or the cost of filling up a basket of groceries. Sinn Féin's fixation on constitutional change is starting to hurt its vote down South.

There is an irony in Sinn Féin's position: when it comes to Great Britain, it has become the party of partition. Sinn Féin wants to partition the island into three constituent parts. Its youth wing has a lovely picture of Ireland from space, saying, "Where's the border? Ireland is an innate island. Why would you have an artificial border on it?", but, of course, Sinn Féin wants to have "artificial" borders to separate England, Scotland and Wales. It is the party of partition. Sinn Féin is allying itself with the Brits to try to advocate its cause. I will say one thing for Scottish and Welsh nationalists: at least they never blew people up to try to get their independence; at least they never chained people to steering wheels and turned them into human bombs. They believe in peaceful politics, and, for that, they have my respect.

Mr O'Toole: Last week's election results indicated something that has been clear for at least a decade and can, in fact, be dated specifically to June 2016 and the Brexit vote: the destabilisation of the UK state, which is significantly and radically poorer, less influential and less stable than it was before that date. Many of us have always supported constitutional change — a new Ireland that is based on reconciliation and is without a border — but many more people, from all sorts of backgrounds, are now thinking about that future as a result of the UK being a poorer, less prosperous, less stable and less influential state.

Those facts are unarguable.

The UK's economy is radically smaller than it otherwise would have been had the UK not left the European Union. Its politics have become profoundly unstable. There have been six Prime Ministers in the past decade, I believe. People here have a right to choose something different from that destabilisation. The results in Scotland and Wales are one manifestation of that, but they are far from the only one. Indeed, for lots of people, it is not just that they dislike the prospect of the potential, perhaps even likely, election of Nigel Farage as Prime Minister of the UK because they dislike his politics and his crypto-billionaire-backed gang of hard right adherents or dodgy dealers; it is that they simply want to choose a completely different future for their country.

I slightly, gently, push back at colleagues from the Alliance Party who once again push the idea that to believe in change on this island is and must always be a distraction from making this place work. As leader of the Opposition, I, along with my colleagues, come here every day and hold the Executive robustly to account for their many failings in delivery. There is no contradiction between doing that and believing in, choosing and advocating a new Ireland as the route to the best possible future for people in Northern Ireland and on the whole island of Ireland. Increasingly, people who do not want to be governed by Nigel Farage and have their future shackled to a poorer and unstable UK state will want to make that choice. The elections last week are a stark reminder of that journey, and the SDLP and others will talk more about that opportunity in the weeks and months ahead.

Mr Gaston: The nationalist Members of the House have somewhat lost the run of themselves after Thursday's elections. Listening to Sinn Féin, one could be forgiven for missing the fact that the SNP lost seats in Scotland. For the benefit of Ms Ennis, I note that the SNP was down six seats in total. It lost over 400,000 votes in the constituency contest and almost 470,000 votes in the regional contest: falls of 32% and 43% respectively. That is hardly a mandate for independence. In Wales, the nationalists obtained just 35% of the vote and are well short of a majority. Sinn Féin would be better concentrating its efforts on getting its own house in order than constantly scrambling to spare its blushes through deflection.

It is most telling that the Matter of the Day refers to Wales and Scotland but ignores the significant developments in England. Across the country and, in fact, in Scotland and Wales too, we have seen the rejection of the old parties and the rallying behind not the loony left, epitomised by the Greens, but Reform UK with its message of total independence not from the UK but from the EU. Reform UK wants to see strong borders to stop illegal immigration and to see a rejection of woke ideology. It is no wonder that it performed so well last week.

The results in Great Britain have been noticed by unionists as well as nationalists in Northern Ireland. They have seen that people across the UK have rejected the old parties and the woke establishment, and guess what? The world has not ended. In fact, I look forward to next year, when we will see a shake-up in this place and I will be joined by many TUV colleagues on these Benches. The lesson from the elections is not that the Union is dying; it is that voters across the United Kingdom have finally woken up and are revolting against the political class. The results have put the establishment parties in this House that belong to the failed Executive on notice.

Mr Buckley: Last week's elections provided a seismic opportunity for many people in parts of the United Kingdom to have their say on 20 months of a Labour Government in which we were promised so much but have seen so little. The electorate has had 20 months to make up its mind on the performance of Sir Keir Starmer. People asked, "What does this man stand for? Who actually is he?", and, by voting in their millions, they decided that Mr Starmer does not live up to his name.

Our Prime Minister talked this morning about taking responsibility for the loss of over 1,400 council seats and the loss of many Members of the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. He should ask why those seats were lost. He talks about, "Be better, do better". He should take responsibility not just for the Labour councillors and Members who were lost but for immigration. This country continues to see thousands upon thousands of people entering illegally and then being put up in accommodation paid for by the taxpayer. There is no responsibility in that regard from Labour. There is also no responsibility when it comes to taxing businesses to the point of extinction. Small businesses are being driven to the breadline by the Labour Government. What about their attack on pensioners? What about their attacks on farmers? Anybody who was unable to predict the results was living in a complete fantasy land. The message was written on the wall.

As sure as night follows day, what is the first thing that Sinn Féin does, in order to cover its progressive diversionary drivel? It gloats in the fact that we will now have three nationalist First Ministers. There is no acknowledgment of the joint nature of the office in Northern Ireland and accountability. That is a sign of what is to come as Sinn Féin attempts to cover disaster after disaster in its Ministers' Departments. What about the cost-of-living crisis now? No, that is all for the optics; today is about driving a nationalist argument. The unionist majority in Scotland still prevails when it comes to voting intentions. The same is the case in Wales. The same is also the case in Northern Ireland, but the lesson for Northern Ireland is that split unionism will cost seats. Stop the nationalist narrative —

Mr Speaker: Steve Aiken.

Mr Buckley: — and get behind the party that can win: the DUP.

Dr Aiken: The election results represent a sad time for those who lost their seats. As a member of the steering group of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly and a member of the steering committee of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, I know how much has been provided to those organisations by Members who, sadly, have lost their seats, and I pay my respects. Some were independent Members. There were Lib Dems and members of Welsh Labour, Scottish Labour, the Welsh Conservatives, the Scottish Conservatives and even the SNP. They are friends and colleagues who worked tirelessly to promote the best of the United Kingdom and in the areas of the climate emergency, LGBT rights and disability rights not just in the United Kingdom but across the world.

I pay particular thanks to Jeremy Balfour, who is a friend of many of us. Jeremy has been a tireless supporter of disability rights and action across the globe. Anybody who has met Jeremy will know that he is probably one of the most dedicated people when it comes to dealing with disability issues. I wish Jeremy all the best for the future. I have been in contact with him, and I know that he will bounce back, but I pass on to him the regards of the members of our committees.

Jamie Greene is another great friend. Believe it or not, he hails from County Antrim. He was a Lib Dem MSP but lost his seat in the Scottish election. Jamie has been a tireless advocate for LGBTQ rights. He has been to the fore, particularly in dealing with rights in areas such as Africa, which not been the easiest place to support LGBTQ issues. I have worked closely with Jeremy on quite a few issues, including on election observation missions, and he is probably one of the soundest politicians whom I have met. So, when some Members gloat about the loss of those Members in the elections, they should remember that a lot of them provided a lot of support and, indeed, have been useful in making sure that our nation, the Commonwealth and many other nations have been supported in democratic consistency. It is with sadness that I make my remarks today, but, when I talk to them all, I will pass on our regards.

Mr Brett: I welcome Sinn Féin's new-found interest in politics in other parts of our United Kingdom. Even by Sinn Féin's standards of rewriting the past, the Chief Whip of the party opposite has managed to completely gloss over the actual results of the election. Ms Ennis described the SNP victory as a historic victory for the people of Scotland: Mr Speaker, I have not been in politics for as long as you have, but, if my party had lost half a million votes and six seats, I would not call that "a historic victory". What there has been is a rejection of the Labour Party in other parts of the United Kingdom, just as the people of Northern Ireland rejected the Labour Party's sister party here, the SDLP, and voted it into opposition.

The party opposite, having outsourced its failed attempts to break up the United Kingdom and blamed the Irish Government for that failure, is now trying to cling to the coat-tails of the outcomes of elections in other parts of the United Kingdom so that it can continue to tell its followers that it was not, in fact, lying to them when it promised the people of Northern Ireland a border poll in 2016; that the current First Minister, who promised one in 2020, was not lying to the people of Northern Ireland; and that Mary Lou McDonald, who set a date of 2035 for a border poll and was then quickly corrected by her party colleagues, who said that it had to be 2030, was not lying to the people of Northern Ireland. When polls for the party opposite continue to fall in Northern Ireland and in the Irish Republic, what do we see? We see calls for a border poll to take place. The people of Northern Ireland see through the distraction politics. They see that, since 1998, the votes for the parties in Northern Ireland that want to break up our United Kingdom have not grown by 1%.

The leader of the Opposition seems to be the man most obsessed with Nigel Farage becoming Prime Minister. We will not have a general election in Northern Ireland for a number of years, but, in the SDLP's hope for relevance, it tries to scare the people of Northern Ireland into wanting to pursue a different constitutional settlement, because it knows, despite the arguments made by Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the Alliance Party, that the people of Northern Ireland know that the Union is best for all.

Ms Ennis: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. For Mr Burrows's information, 50 years from now is not 2060; it is 2076. We will take no lectures on the competency of our Ministers from a person who cannot get basic maths right.

Mr Speaker: I do not think that that is a point of order, but, nonetheless, the point has been made.

Mr Brett: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. At the Executive Office Committee last Wednesday, despite numerous attempts by me and the Member for North Antrim —.

Mr Sheehan: That is not a point of order.

Mr Brett: Sorry, Mr Sheehan, you —.

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Brett has the Floor. I make the decisions on whether it is a point of order, and I usually do that at the end of a contribution, not after the second line.

Mr Brett: Mr Sheehan, if you want to be Speaker, put a good word in with Ms Ennis, and she might take out Carál and put you in.

Despite attempts by Mr Gaston and me to seek information from the Office of the Irish Language Commissioner, the commissioner has refused to provide the details, stating that he is currently dealing with a freedom of information request from a private citizen.

Mr Speaker, are you aware of any rules or Standing Order that would prevent a body that is accountable to the Assembly from providing factual information to Committees if a freedom of information request is being dealt with?

Mr Speaker: I thank the Member for raising the matter. If a Committee makes a request under section 44 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I will judge that request as and when it comes to me. Whether the request is made of an arm's-length body or, indeed, civil servants who come before Committees, openness, honesty, frankness and transparency are what the Northern Ireland public want to see in the House. I say, not for the benefit of anyone who has made such a request but, rather, as a general remark, that people, particularly those who are paid from the public purse, who engage in obfuscation are not fulfilling their duties. I am not aware of any previous case of someone having used a freedom of information request as the reason not to provide information on the day that they should have done when presenting to a Committee.

Committees have the same power as the House does. That being the case, it is for Committee Chairs to ensure that Committee members get responses to the questions that they have asked. What I will say to all Members, however, is not to allow themselves — I speak from experience — to be walked over by witnesses who come to Committees. Be they civil servants, from arm's-length bodies or others who are being paid from the Northern Ireland Budget, they are there to answer Committee members' questions. When they are asked questions, they should therefore answer them. If they do not, I encourage the Committee Chair of whatever Committee it happens to be to ensure that those questions are answered. If a section 44 request comes to me, I will look at it and give it consideration.

Ms Bradshaw: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you know, I chair the Committee for the Executive Office, and I put on record that this is not the end of the line for the Committee. I think that we were all upset and frustrated at the commissioner's use of a freedom of information request so as not to provide information, so we are writing to the Irish Language Commissioner citing section 44, but we will potentially also seek legal advice. Moreover, the Committee has written to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister to ask them what their understanding is of the supply of information to the Committee for scrutiny. I assure people that we have not let the issue drop.

Mr Speaker: Thank you, Ms Bradshaw. I was making my remarks in the round. I did not witness what happened at the Executive Office Committee, nor have I been following the issue. Rather, I was making a general observation.

There are no more points of order, so I will move on.

Mr Kearney: In the 10 miles or so between Antrim town and Moneyglass, there are five Gaelic Athletic Association clubs, and all have won county titles. South-west Antrim is central to GAA life in County Antrim, and one of its beating hearts is Kickhams GAC. The club was founded 102 years ago. Since then, it has gone from strength to strength. All Gaelic games are played at all levels in the club. It has won county titles in all four codes, and, like hundreds of others, I have fond memories of playing football and hurling on McAteer's Field. Back in the day, club facilities were a green tin hut. Then, over 40 years ago, the big hall was built, and 20 years ago, a new pitch, pavilion and Astroturf pitch were put in place, all of which were funded and built by the local community.

Yesterday, more history was made with the opening of the new £1·2 million facilities, including another new pitch, a gym and a shop. All that was also achieved through fundraising, sponsorship and sheer hard work by local people. The day-long programme of celebrations was absolutely fantastic. Uachtarán Cumann Lúthchleas Gael

, Jarlath Burns, spoke about the ethos and vision of the club. He could have attended the Connacht and Munster football finals, but instead chose to come to Creggan.

Yesterday marked the start of a new phase in the club's history. Five generations and hundreds of members, supporters and players gathered for the occasion. The sense of achievement was absolutely palpable. Yesterday Creggan oozed a sense of ambition. Terry Robb, the club chairperson, put it really well when he said, "We have not come this far just to get this far. The new pitch and gym facilities are achievements which bow to the past. A new horizon exists now because we all stand on the shoulders of giants". The new facilities will be a catalyst to secure and inspire the future of Gaelic games in Creggan, and even greater success, I am sure.

A new chapter has opened up for the young people, and the not so young, of that small rural community. Future generations now have their field of dreams. Everything about Cumann Lúthchleas Gael is future-focused on our youth and new generations. It is where we all belong, and that is the mission of Kickhams GAC.

Mr Buckley: Last Thursday was a sad day for Northern Ireland. For the first time in living memory, we saw a pastor criminalised. It was not for violence, theft or scandalous misconduct — indeed, the judge himself recognised Pastor Clive Johnston as a man of good character. Pastor Johnston was convicted under the safe access zones legislation for preaching John chapter 3, verse 16 within a safe access zone.

I love it when this country is known around the world for the right reasons: excellence in sport, education or innovation. Yet, last week, for very wrong reasons, we made international headlines because a pastor was convicted for preaching John chapter 3, verse 16.

When that legislation came before the Assembly, my party — I spoke in the House — warned that it was bad law. We opposed it for the very reasons that there were serious concerns for religious and civil liberty. The DUP had prepared a petition of concern to stop the legislation. Sadly, it fell one short. We are a nation that has been shaped by a long tradition of constitutional, civil and religious liberty standards. Many of the freedoms enjoyed across the western world developed on these islands, yet, today, we find ourselves in the position where pastors are being criminalised under vague and expansive legislation.

Badly written laws have consequences far beyond that which was their first intention.

Those are the words of John chapter 3, verse 16. Just think of that. Other parties in the House have now criminalised the public preaching of those words in certain parts of Northern Ireland, in a nation that has been shaped by over 1,500 years of Christian truth and witness.

There are many concerning parts following this judgement. If preaching John chapter 3, verse 16 is capable of amounting to unlawful influence, what about carrying a Bible through a hospital? What about saying a prayer for an end-of-life patient? What about a carol service or speaking with a patient or family member in a ward or in the public area? Those things should not need legal advice. We hold Pastor Clive Johnston and the Christian Institute in our prayers as they tackle this issue.

Mr McReynolds: I will address the disorder that occurred in east Belfast on Saturday evening. Unfortunately, in past months, a number of young people have been involved in arranged fighting in east Belfast, and, at the weekend, they took it upon themselves to engage in rioting and antisocial behaviour. The most concerning part of it is that some of those involved are only 10 or 11 years old. Damage to property, organised fights and outbursts towards PSNI officers are completely unacceptable. The fact that, in 2026, restaurants had to close and a window was smashed is ridiculous. Fear will be felt and there will be a wider impact on the local community and on how others view east Belfast because of those young people's actions.

Ultimately, it is also a safeguarding issue. As a new parent, I say that parents should know where their children are and what they are up to. Children and young people are planning and, using public transport, travelling to prearranged gatherings to take part in antisocial behaviour. However, it is also about a failure of the system. The systemic underfunding of youth services in east Belfast means that those young people have nowhere to go and that they fall through the cracks. While youth services are doing all that they can to prevent young people from taking part, they cannot do it alone. The young people deserve better, and our community deserves better: no one wants this. There are age-appropriate ways of engaging and educating young people who end up in the justice system, in conjunction with their parents, including through youth conferences and the work of the Youth Justice Agency.

I commend the PSNI officers who managed the situation on Saturday night, dispersing the crowds and maintaining the peace following the disorder. I highlight the fact that this is not all young people. Many amazing young people across east Belfast have no interest in behaving like that. I call on them to continue to show their peers that there is more to east Belfast than violence. I also urge parents to talk to their young people and help them to understand that, when they participate in recreational fighting and rioting, they put themselves at risk and could greatly harm their futures.

Mr Burrows: I pay tribute to the six women who recently secured the conviction of William Lloyd-Lavery for sexual abuse in a school in the seventies. The victims displayed great courage, resilience and tenacity in securing that conviction after all these years. Two of the victims, Nicola Bannon and Lynne Darcy, waived their anonymity. Collectively, in making the case so public, the victims have, I hope, inspired other victims to come forward and give evidence.

The publication of 'The Katie Simpson Review' report and the sentencing of William Lloyd-Lavery should make last week a seminal moment in Northern Ireland. There is an opportunity for us to make a clear and unequivocal stand against any form of abuse, degrading behaviour or sexual assault against women or girls.

Lloyd-Lavery's offending was disgusting. It is shameful that, at one stage, he worked for the Ulster Unionist Party, in that he worked for an MLA. No association should change our ability to stand up and say that his behaviour was vile.

The case brought up the issue of character references. One was given by David Campbell and another by David Lavery, the first of whom is a former a chair of my party, I am ashamed to say, and now works for the Loyalist Communities Council. The second of those people holds a high position in the Law Society. Let me make this clear: when it comes to a trial, people should be able to put forward evidence if they want to make the case that someone is innocent, but, once that person has been convicted of sexual assault, there is no place for a character reference. In this case, the defendant, William Lloyd-Lavery, denied the offence. In effect, he called all his victims liars, yet, on his conviction, two members of our society, including one who holds a senior position in the Law Society, felt that it was it right to give that individual a character reference.

The case also throws up the issue of delay. The time between the victims giving a statement to the police and the verdict was six years. Many victims, of sexual and domestic violence in particular, cannot withstand the pressure of giving evidence over a six-year period. Often, suspects delay their plea — in this case, there was a not guilty plea — until the last minute, in the hope that a victim will break.

I pay tribute to those women for their courage, their resilience and their tenacity. We need to deal with the issue of character references post conviction for sexual assault, speed up our justice system and take a stand for victims, not perpetrators.

Mr McCrossan: I am going to speak about the disgraceful way in which a club in my constituency — Strabane Athletic Football Club (AFC) — has been treated by the Department for Infrastructure and its Sinn Féin Minister. The club has just delivered one of the proudest moments in its history, winning the North West Senior Cup for the first time ever and bringing the trophy home to Strabane following a brilliant season on the pitch. By all accounts, Strabane AFC is a community club, built by hundreds of volunteers and players and driven by local people who genuinely care about giving young people opportunities and building something positive for the future. While the club delivers success after success on the pitch, building by the day, what does it get back from the Sinn Féin-led Government? Nothing but delays — no responses to questions but total silence and disrespect.

The planning application for the stadium was submitted in February 2018: eight years ago. Think about that. In those eight years, young players have grown up and left school, and some have started families of their own, while the project still sits, trapped by a ridiculous system. It is a positive project that will have huge benefits for the people I represent. There were no objections to the application. It had overwhelming community backing and was unanimously supported by the planning committee in Derry City and Strabane District Council, but the Department decided to call it in anyway and has sat on it for the years since. The same has happened with a Lidl application in the city of Derry: eight years on a desk.

The Planning Appeals Commission hearing finally took place in September, and the report of that has, to my knowledge, been sitting on the Minister for Infrastructure's desk since November 2025. It is now months later, and we are still waiting. The Minister for Infrastructure has not answered questions from me as the MLA for the constituency. Those questions go unanswered. There has been no decision and no explanation. There is no urgency whatever. Meanwhile, the people behind the club have spent tens of thousands of pounds to try to get this over the line. Local volunteers have given years of their lives and their effort for what? To be ignored by government. That is what it feels like. Communities west of the Bann feel ignored.

I pay tribute to the people who have kept the club alive, such as Seamus McElroy, Renie McElroy and Pat Henderson. It is a great project; in fact, it is exactly the sort of project that Sinn Féin politicians praise whenever the cameras are on. When it comes to actually delivering it, however, delays suddenly start, excuses begin and people suffer the consequences. The people of Strabane are tired of waiting and watching the Department hide behind paperwork while local people do the heavy lifting. It is time that Sinn Féin, with the big mandate that it has in West Tyrone, did something for the people of Strabane. When it comes to Strabane Athletic and the A5 —

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

Mr McCrossan: — they are failing miserably —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up, thank you.

Mr McCrossan: — on a daily basis.

Mr Gaston: The conviction of Pastor Clive Johnston marked a profoundly dark day for Northern Ireland and the Assembly. I include the Assembly because it was the House that passed the law that criminalised a man for preaching the gospel. The idea that devolution is some sort of safeguard for civil and religious liberties was finally buried at Coleraine courthouse. All those who voted in favour of the Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Act (Northern Ireland) 2023 or found something better to do that day than to vote at all should hang their heads in shame. In 2022, the Green Party led Sinn Féin, the SDLP, Alliance and, sadly, the Ulster Unionist Party through the Lobbies to bring in the safe zone legislation.

Pastor Johnston is 78 years old. He is no threat to society, yet what was he convicted of? Put simply, he was convicted for preaching from John 3:16:

That is a verse that many of us will have learned at Sunday school or seen on posters or on the gable wall of many churches across the country. John 3:16 is a verse that many who sit in the Chamber would do well to heed.

It is striking to read in the judgement that it is accepted that Pastor Johnston and his associates on that day had no placards inside the safe zone and that he said nothing about abortion, yet, the perverse and, yes, wicked law passed by the House saw him convicted and fined for daring to preach the gospel in a Christian country. Those are the depths that this country has sunk to.

I commend pastor Johnston for his stand. His testimony gives us believers in the House great encouragement, and we should take encouragement from it that, regardless of the obstacles that we find in front of us, we must always put our faith first. I wish Pastor Johnston well in his appeal and trust that many will come to faith through the stand that he has taken for my Lord and Saviour. My faith brought me to Stormont. I will continue to speak up for the unborn and speak out against the holocaust in our time that is abortion:

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

Mr Sheehan: Is gearr go raibh Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann buailte linn i mBéal Feirste. Agus níos lú ná 100 lá le fanacht againn, níl teorainn leis an scéala chugainn maidir le suíomhanna, pleananna, ceoltóirí agus imeachtaí. Tá an chathair ar bís; tá ardú croí agus meanman le sonrú ar fud an bhaill; tá na pleananna faoi lán seoil; agus tá gach duine dár labhair mé leo, tá sin ag tnúth leis an fhéile mór le rá seo a theacht chuig an chathair s’againn.

Déanfar ionaid champála sealadacha dár bpáirceanna le freastal ar na sluaite, cuirfear borradh ollmhór faoin gheilleagar áitiúil, agus táthar ag iarraidh ar ghnólachtaí ar fud na cathrach tús a chur ar an phleanáil lena chinntiú gur féidir leo riar ar an mhéadú ar an éileamh. Chláraigh breis is 1,500 duine le hobair dheonach le linn na fleidhe a dhéanamh, rud a léiríonn chomh mór agus atá muintir na cathrach ag dúil leis an fhéile. Beidh ról ríthábhachtach ag oibrithe deonacha le rath na féile a chinntiú. Tá deiseanna go fóill ann ar obair dheonach a dhéanamh. Mar sin de, molaim do gach duine páirt a ghlacadh san fhéile.

Léiríonn an fhleadh an Béal Feirste atá anois ann, an cur chun cinn atá déanta againn, agus, níos tábhachtaí arís, an bealach taistil atáimid a thabhairt. Bhéarfaidh sí deis dúinn rogha agus togha na cathrach a chur ar taispeáint, agus cuirfidh sí a bhfuil de shaibhreas ceoil agus cultúir againn a chur os comhair an tsaoil mhóir.

Mr Robinson: I want to highlight one of the greatest local sporting events: the North West 200. Before I do so, I acknowledge the death of a rider in the Superbike qualifiers on Thursday at Station corner. Forty-eight-year-old Kamil Holan from the Czech Republic will be for ever remembered, and we extend our deepest sympathies to his family circle at this most difficult time.

Every year for almost a century, for the North West 200, the roads linking Portrush, Portstewart and Coleraine are transformed into a world-famous circuit that attracts the best riders and tens of thousands of bike fans from across the globe. There is simply nothing like it. As someone who lives in the north coast area, I know that the atmosphere during race week is electric. The roar of the engines, the sight of riders reaching breathtaking speeds and the crowds lining the coast create an unforgettable spectacle. Families return year after year. Visitors discover our stunning coastline, our hospitality and our people. For many, the North West 200 is their introduction to the Province, and what an introduction it is.

The impact of the North West 200 reaches far beyond sport. The event is recognised as and proven to be a vital driver of the local economy. Hotels, guest houses, restaurants, cafes, shops, transport providers and local businesses all benefit from the influx of visitors. During race week, accommodation is booked out months in advance, hospitality venues thrive, jobs are supported and revenue flows directly into our area. The North West 200 showcases Northern Ireland on the international stage in a way that few events can. Television coverage and media attention reach millions of viewers worldwide, promoting our tourism industry, landscape and reputation as a welcoming place. It is a sporting event that is an economic engine and a global advertisement for the Province.

The North West 200 is and has always been one of Northern Ireland's greatest success stories, and we thank the organisers for that. Today, it is important to recognise not only the races but the enormous contribution that the event makes to our economy and our international profile. As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, it is also important that, today, we remember Mr Holan, a rider who was lost doing what he loved most.

Mr Donnelly: I wish to speak about Mental Health Awareness Week. I begin by recognising the charities, community organisations and front-line staff across our mental health services who continue to do extraordinary work in a system that is not fit for purpose. Yesterday, I had the pleasure of joining my local Extern Embrace group at its Darkness into Light event in Ballygally, where I heard about the physical and mental health benefits of cold-water-dipping groups. However, our system is one in which people are left waiting until they reach crisis point before receiving the help and support that they need, and some never get it. We have a mental health strategy for which only 16% of the required funding has been identified, and it increasingly risks being shelved due to a lack of action. The theme of this year's Mental Health Awareness Week is action, so let us talk honestly about action.

Last week, the Health Committee received a written briefing from the Department of Health on the progress of the mental health strategy. Frankly, it was deeply concerning. The Department presented as achievements things that, going by its own timelines, should have been delivered months ago: for example, writing two job descriptions was listed as progress, despite the commitment to have the full team in place by March this year. An early intervention and prevention plan is still being developed and finalised, despite a commitment to have a full draft completed by December last year. Workshops and draft actions for digital mental health were highlighted, despite the commitment to have an action plan completed and implementation under way by March. Those are only a few examples of an update that, honestly, was shocking and stark, littered as it was with missed targets and a serious lack of accountability.

There is a real danger that we become so used to delay and watered-down ambitions hidden behind budgetary constraints that failure to act becomes the norm. Funding pressures are real — no one is pretending otherwise — but not every failure can be blamed on budgets. When Departments miss their targets and attempt to present missed deadlines as achievements or progress, there is a serious issue. Delivery plans and strategies are not box-ticking exercises; they are supposed to improve people's lives. Behind every delayed action is an impact on someone's life. It represents longer waits for assessment, inability to access treatment, health deterioration and a greater cost to the health service, digging us deeper into a reactive and crisis-driven service.

The Committee has agreed to write to the Department to seek clear information around accountability, because there are now serious questions that need to be answered. Who is responsible when targets are repeatedly missed? What mechanisms are in place to meaningfully monitor delivery? Writing a job description two months after a full team is supposed to be in place is not an achievement to the person in crisis who still cannot access the services that they so desperately need. Therefore, I hope that the Minister takes the message of action seriously and is prepared to match the scale of the mental health crisis with the urgency, accountability and action that it demands.

Mr McNulty: Today, I congratulate Eithne and Colin Bell as they prepare to step back from the day-to-day running of the Kevin Bell Repatriation Trust after dedicating 13 years to helping families to repatriate loved ones who, sadly, passed away while abroad. Eithne and Colin founded the trust in 2013 following the sudden death of their son Kevin in New York. In the depths of their grief, they decided to use the funds raised to repatriate Kevin to Ireland to establish a charity to help other families who found themselves in the awful situation where a loved one has died abroad. In doing so, they created a powerful and permanent legacy for their son Kevin.

After having experienced huge difficulties bringing Kevin's remains home, Eithne and Colin wanted to make sure that there was somewhere to which grieving families could reach out for financial and practical support when facing the same situation. In 13 years, the Kevin Bell Repatriation Trust has helped return 2,500 loved ones home to their families from almost 100 countries. That is 2,500 families who have been touched by Eithne and Colin's kindness. Eithne and Colin have supported those families in some of their darkest, most challenging times by lifting the financial burden and that of navigating complex systems in order to bring loved ones' remains home.

Based in the Whitegates Business Park in Newry, the Kevin Bell Repatriation Trust is the only organisation of its kind in the world. What an incredible achievement by Eithne and Colin, and what a wonderful legacy for Kevin. Eithne and Collie, I wish you Godspeed. Go raibh míle, míle maith agaibh.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Julie Middleton. You have two minutes.

Mrs Middleton: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Within the past week, we have seen a disgraceful escalation in sectarian attacks, which are violent in nature, in the Fountain and Bishop Street interface area. The attacks are not welcome, and they are unjustifiable. The attacks that have been witnessed in the past number of days are not a new experience for residents. To be clear, such attacks were unacceptable in the past, and they remain completely unacceptable now. Let me also be clear that we are talking about masonry, petrol bombs and fireworks being launched into a residential area, where people of all ages live, including vulnerable adults and elderly people. We are also talking about streets on which children want to play and about residents who want to live in peace and have a peaceful night's sleep.

The attacks are designed to intimidate, isolate and drive people out of their homes. I have been in constant contact with the PSNI throughout the disturbances. Although I welcome the increased patrols and the arrests that were made the weekend before last and in the days that followed, we must be honest and say that the response against the perpetrators must be robust and consistent. More than just a reactive presence is needed. We need a proactive strategy that prevents such gatherings before the first sectarian slur is shouted and the first stone thrown.

To those responsible, let me be clear: you are not defending anything. You are destroying your neighbours' peace of mind, well-being and mental health. Although physical damage to property can be repaired, albeit it should not have to be, the psychological toll on the residents of the Fountain and Bishop Street interface is much harder to mend. As a representative of Foyle, I will not stand by while that community is used as a punchbag. I will continue to work with the PSNI, residents —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member's time is up.

Mrs Middleton: — and community representatives.

Mr Brett (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Economy): I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed that there will be no time limit on the debate.

Mr Brett: As the House will be aware, the call for evidence for the Committee Stage of the Petroleum Exploration and Licensing (Repeal) Bill has commenced. As Members will also be aware, there were a large number of responses received to the Department's related consultation. In order to give it time to engage with all the anticipated relevant stakeholders, the Committee unanimously agreed that it would seek an extension to the Bill's Committee Stage until 30 October 2026. If the motion is passed by the House, the Committee will endeavour to conclude its deliberations in advance of the date in the motion. On behalf of the Committee, I commend the motion to the House.

Mr Brett (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Economy): I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed that there will be no time limit on this debate.

Mr Brett: Again, I rise as Chair of the Committee. As the House is aware, the call for evidence for the Committee Stage of the Utility Regulator (Support for Decarbonisation Preparation) Bill has now commenced. As Members are also aware, the Bill deals with the functions of the Utility Regulator. Stakeholders have previously signalled that they might wish to see the Bill amended in that regard.

In order to give the Committee time to understand whether such amendments might be necessary, the Committee unanimously agreed to seek an extension to the Committee Stage until 20 November 2026. In any event, and as indicated with the previous resolution, the Committee will endeavour to conclude its deliberations in advance of the date in motion. Therefore, on behalf of the Committee, I commend the extension of the Committee Stage to the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I ask Members to take their ease before we move to the next item in the Order Paper.

Mr O'Toole (The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance): I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed that there will be no time limit on this debate.

Mr O'Toole: I am pleased to be able to move the motion today. First of all, the Committee welcomes the Bill. In bringing the motion, we are clear that we regard 13 November 2026 as a limit rather than a target. Indeed, with several recent Bills, the Committee has proved itself able to rigorously scrutinise legislation significantly more complex than this Bill. That is not to say that this is not an important Bill. With those Bills, we have completed our reports without undue delay, and, where evidence-gathering has concluded earlier than anticipated, we have been able to conclude our scrutiny sooner than anticipated. We hope that that may also be the case with the Bill.

We bring forward the motion to extend the Committee Stage in order to ensure that we have the necessary time and flexibility to discharge our statutory scrutiny role appropriately. The Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill was introduced to the Assembly on Monday 16 March 2026. It completed Second Stage on Monday 20 April, with Committee Stage beginning on Tuesday 21 April. As Members are aware, Standing Order 33(2) states:

Without an extension to Committee Stage being agreed, the last day of Committee Stage would be Wednesday 3 June, when the Committee would be required to lay its report on the Bill. In practical terms, that would significantly curtail the Committee's ability to undertake the level of scrutiny that the draft legislation warrants.

I will not go through all the Bill's provisions in detail, as they were rehearsed at Second Stage. First, the Bill brings non-religious belief marriage fully within the statutory framework of the Marriage (Northern Ireland) Order 2003, placing belief bodies on the same statutory footing as religious bodies for the purposes of registering officiants and granting temporary authorisations. Secondly, it raises the minimum age of marriage and civil partnerships to 18, without exception, and introduces an offence that is aimed at conduct that is intended to cause a child to enter into a marriage.

The proposed extension to Friday 13 November 2026 would allow the Committee to undertake scrutiny in the usual and appropriate manner, which would include a six-week call for evidence; consideration of written submissions and survey responses; and a number of in-person evidence sessions during Committee meetings. It would ensure that the Committee could continue its wider programme of work alongside scrutiny of the Bill, including its ongoing inquiry into the performance and culture of the Northern Ireland Civil Service. The Committee has also been careful to take account of recess periods and to plan scrutiny in a realistic and transparent way. Accordingly, the proposed approach allows for the summer and Halloween recesses and extends Committee Stage into mid-November.

Members will be cognisant of the importance of applying appropriate time to legislative scrutiny, including the reputational risks that can arise from inadequate scrutiny, and the importance of adhering to well-established Bill scrutiny procedures. Given some of the consequences of previous bits of legislation, it is important that we are all mindful of that and of the reputation of this institution more broadly.

In requesting that the Assembly supports the extension, the Committee is simply asking for the flexibility that is required to give the Bill the time and scrutiny that it deserves while, again, emphasising that the Committee views the extended date of 13 November as a limit rather than a target. The Committee commends the motion to the House and seeks Members' approval.

Miss Dolan: I support the proposal to extend the Committee Stage of the Marriage Bill in order to allow for fuller scrutiny of the draft legislation, which will raise the minimum age for marriage and civil partnership to 18 and make involvement in causing a child to enter into that arrangement a criminal offence. It is a piece of draft legislation that has equality and human rights at its core. Extending the Committee Stage will help to ensure that the Bill is given the detailed consideration that it deserves.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call the Chair of the Finance Committee to respond before I put the Question.

Mr O'Toole: I have very little to respond with, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Assembly for considering the motion. I trust that it will be confident that the Committee will treat the extended date not as a target but as a limit. Hopefully, the motion will be passed.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, you may take your ease briefly, please.

Mr O'Toole (The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance): I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to two hours for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 15 minutes to propose and 15 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members will have five minutes. Matthew, please open the debate on the motion.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to be able to speak to the Finance Committee's detailed scrutiny of the draft Budget, which was published earlier this year. I will speak largely in my capacity as Chairman of the Committee and will then make a few remarks in a party capacity afterwards.

Members will be aware that the Committee for Finance undertakes a round-robin exercise to hear the views of other Statutory Committees on their respective Departments' budget allocations. As has previously been the case, the exercise also takes in the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council's view on the draft Budget. The Committee has compiled a report on those views, and it has been published. Today's debate provides Members and Chairs of the Statutory Committees, in particular, the opportunity to debate the 2026-29/2030 Budget. The Finance Committee takes its role in leading scrutiny of departmental budgets seriously, with members seeking ways to support and facilitate other Statutory Committees in budget scrutiny. The Committee is grateful to the Minister for agreeing to respond to the debate, and I welcome having the debate today, even if an agreed Budget has not yet been introduced.

I start the debate by noting that this is not an agreed Executive Budget, with the Minister confirming that he is yet to reach an agreement with Executive colleagues on a final Budget. Finance officials have highlighted to the Committee on a number of occasions the fact that in-year funding will be significantly less than last year's and that Departments must live within their allocations. The Committee noted that, following the publication of the draft Budget, the Treasury recognised the challenges facing the Executive and the savings realised in 2025-26. The Treasury has agreed to provide the Executive with a reserve claim of £400 million of resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) in 2025-26, with repayment over the following three financial years. Officials have confirmed to the Committee that section 64 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, stating that an agreed Executive Budget should be laid before the Assembly before the beginning of each financial year, has been breached. It is therefore timely for the House to debate the motion, with no agreed Budget despite our being in the new financial year. The permanent secretary of the Department is already preparing for emergency measures should a Budget not be agreed by the end of June. I thank the Business Committee for agreeing to schedule the debate. The Committee asks the Minister for timescales as to when a Budget may be agreed and whether it will be a single-year or multi-year Budget. It is extremely important that that be agreed sooner rather than later.

The debate today is informed by the Budget document itself; the useful Fiscal Council assessment; oral and written evidence taken by the Finance Committee; and the scrutiny undertaken by other Statutory Committees. I thank the Fiscal Council, Pivotal, the Ulster University Economic Policy Centre, the Nevin Economic Research Institute (NERI) and all the Statutory Committees that were able to respond with their views. I will reflect on some of that evidence on the Finance Committee's behalf.

The Fiscal Council highlights the fact that the proposed multi-year Budget is significant. It is significant that a multi-year Budget has been proposed in the first place, but it starts from an exceptionally challenging position. The Fiscal Council notes that Northern Ireland overspent in 2022-23 and only avoided overspends in 2023-24 and 2024-25 due to exceptional Treasury interventions. The Fiscal Council warned strongly about the danger of normalising overspending, with repeated Treasury interventions acting as short-term measures that weaken discipline. It noted a cultural shift. Historic overspends, once considered unacceptable, are now more tolerated. Where Departments expect end-year bailouts, overspending becomes a rational expectation.

The council confirms that the draft Budget theoretically balances at year start, but it is unlikely to unfold as presented. The repayment of the reserve claim over the next three financial years makes the underlying funding tighter than the headline numbers. Baselines for Health and Education start below their current spending levels, making re-emerging overspends highly likely.

On the level of need, the council acknowledged that the 124% needs-based uplift is based on demographics and structural characteristics today, not historical legacy. Factors such as regional inequality, long-term ill health, legacy issues — that is, legacy from the conflict — and complex ageing profiles in Northern Ireland may mean that the true level of need now exceeds 124%. Indeed, since we took evidence on that, we have had updated demographic data around how fast our population is ageing relative to neighbours here. The council states that the Barnett formula is poor at addressing infrastructure deficits or accumulated social need and that non-Barnett injections may be needed for resource and capital.

Members are engaged with the work around the fiscal framework following Professor Gerry Holtham's report. The Committee supports the Minister's ongoing engagement around Northern Ireland's level of need with the Treasury. Hopefully, we will have an update on that today from the Minister and a briefing from the Department over the next few weeks.

The council emphasised that, while the Executive clearly need to make hard choices, only the Treasury can fundamentally change the model of funding. It believes that a credible Treasury strategy could set the right path and limit future interventions in order to reintroduce real Budget discipline. The Executive will still need to make real strategic choices, consider revenue raising, address workforce issues and look at genuine transformation of public services.

With specific reference to the Department of Finance's Budget position, the Committee noted that the Department will carry significant capital pressures that it intends to manage down through a range of measures. The Committee will continue to keep those pressures and other pressures identified by the Department under observation.

Through its membership of the Interparliamentary Finance Committee Forum, the Committee continues to engage with the UK Treasury to provide greater scrutiny of its actions, which have a direct and significant impact on the UK fiscal context, not least the Budget for Northern Ireland. For example, the Committee has made a number of representations to the Treasury regarding changes to the local growth fund and will continue to make representations on other budgetary matters. Notwithstanding some other comments that have been made, our Committee has been very robust and repeated in its engagement with the UK Treasury, whether it is seeking information or presenting agreed cross-party views from the Committee to the Treasury. We have not always had adequate or helpful responses, but we have been consistently robust in engaging with the Treasury.

The Committee is working with our Scottish and Welsh colleagues to ensure that our Budget settlements are reflective of our respective needs and are more adaptive and flexible. The current arrangements do not incentivise the Executive to focus on growing the economy or the tax base here, as current arrangements with the Treasury would see us losing growth in our fiscal base to the block grant.

As per the custom in previous years, the Committee agreed to ask other Statutory Committees in the Assembly to review the anticipated impacts of the 2026-29/2030 draft Budget proposals on their respective Departments. The Chairs of those Committees will have an opportunity to comment, but I will note the common themes from the Statutory Committees, including highlighted concerns over the lack of Executive agreement on a multi-year Budget. Without Executive agreement, the Committees found it difficult to provide full scrutiny of the draft Budget. In many cases, it was because their Ministers and Departments have not agreed on the Budget. Therefore, they are not engaging with it as a true final Budget.

Some Committees were unable to take a formal position because, as I said, Departments had not completed their budget assessments. Many Departments face resource and capital shortfalls, with limited discretionary spending, and most budgets are tied up in statutory duties and fixed costs. Several Committees warned that Departments will be forced to consider cuts to programmes and front-line services. Departments warned that the draft Budget threatens their ability to meet their statutory duties and Programme for Government commitments and to maintain essential services for vulnerable populations. Statutory Committees indicated their understanding of the constrained fiscal context in which we find ourselves. They acknowledged that there is considerable pressure on the public purse and that difficult decisions will need to be made.

We look forward to hearing Members' comments and the Minister's response. Once again, we are grateful that he agreed to respond to the debate. We hope that the debate will be useful at least in flushing out some of the issues in the Assembly. I will close my comments as Chairperson of the Committee for Finance there, having welcomed the fact that we are able to have the debate.

I will make a few remarks in a party capacity. It is, I am afraid, deeply disappointing and, frankly, somewhat farcical that we are debating a report on a draft Budget that has not yet been signed off by the Executive. That is an indictment of the Executive and their failure to take responsibility for the public who elected them and all who sent them here to improve their lives and public services.

We are now six weeks into a new financial year, which means that, as of Wednesday this week, we will be six weeks, I think, into the Executive's being in breach of the law. That should be a grave matter for any Government: all Governments should operate according to both the letter and spirit of the law. The Northern Ireland Act is quite clear that a Budget must be passed before the beginning of the financial year. There is no Budget at all at the moment. We are in the surreal situation where we have a draft Budget. Its status is kind of unknown: it is sort of in the ether, and we are debating it as a draft. When it was published in January this year, the Minister said that it would be transformative. Now, apparently, he himself has disowned it. Certainly, other Ministers appear to have no interest whatsoever in taking responsibility for agreeing a Budget.

We are less than a year from the dissolution of the Assembly at the end of the mandate; a mandate that began with the First Minister, the deputy First Minister and the then Finance Minister talking about the need and, indeed, the urgency of passing a multi-year Budget and the opportunity to do so. Next month, we will be a year on from the spending review that was published in London. Again, we were told that we would soon get a multi-year Budget. There was in exercise in which Departments were encouraged to draw up five-year business plans, four-year capital budgets and three-year resource budgets. We were to move to a brave new world, yet here we are: six weeks into the new financial year, there is no sign of a Budget being agreed. It is a genuinely farcical situation.

Of course, it is an extremely tight settlement, and, of course, this chaotic UK Government are not prioritising Northern Ireland. I do not think that anybody in the Chamber could think that they were, although it was somewhat surreal to hear DUP Members "rejoice" at the idea of a Reform Government, which, I would say, would care even less about this place. However, when the Opposition and I question the Executive's failure to set a Budget, we are told that we are simply speaking up for the Brits, as it were. That is a shocking and pathetic indictment of an Executive who cannot and will not take responsibility for themselves. It is clear that the UK Government are not prioritising this place, but that cynicism and their indifference is made worse by Executive ineptitude. Those two things go hand in hand.

The Treasury is deeply cynical about this place. I know that better than most, not least because of my chairpersonship of the Finance Committee. The Government and Treasury are not prioritising us. We are not at the top of their list, not only for funding but for attention. Whatever the colour of the Government in charge in London, yet and all, the Executive, rather than take responsibility for us, seek to constantly shift responsibility on to that UK Government, who, they say, do not care about this place. In doing so, they fail the public. As Chair of the Finance Committee and leader of the Opposition, I certainly support the Executive's getting the best possible financial settlement for this place. That is critical. Clearly, we are in the situation where we have a higher level of need, for all the reasons that I have outlined and that we all know, including the legacy of conflict, our rurality and our ageing population.

Given the cynicism that exists in London, which is real and pernicious, the problem will ultimately be solved only when there is a new constitutional dispensation, but it is made worse when the Executive refuse to take responsibility .The two main parties shift the blame to each other and then simply say, "We cannot do anything until the UK Government step in". We have a farcical and chaotic situation in which, in the final year of what was supposed to be a new start in our transformation of public services, we have no idea at all whether there will even be a Budget.

I also ask the Minister whether he will share with the Finance Committee and the House letters that were sent by his Department's permanent secretary to all Departments but were, unacceptably, withheld from the Finance Committee. I do not know why they were withheld, but I would like to know whether he was responsible for not sharing that information with us. We should know what the situation is. Permanent secretaries are getting letters from his Department stating, "There is no Budget, so go on spending for the time being, and, fingers crossed, one will be agreed by the summer". If a Budget is not agreed by the summer, the public should know who is responsible for that: the Executive. They have not taken their responsibilities seriously, all the while awarding themselves a pay rise while they get into their chauffeur-driven cars and shifting blame to other people. That is not good enough and is not acceptable. I hope that, eventually, we will be in the Chamber to debate an agreed Budget.

Miss Dolan: The Committee for Finance and Fiscal Council reports on the draft Budget reiterate the challenging position of our public finances and how the current financial settlement with the Treasury does not meet our needs. Decades of underfunding by the British Government have, in recent years, been exacerbated by austerity measures by successive Tory Governments and now the Labour Government. Over 90% of our public finances comes from the block grant, so it is no surprise that, in its evidence to the Committee, the Nevin Economic Research Institute said that local revenue raising cannot fix the funding gap and that the deficit is a result of policy decisions made by politicians in London who are not elected by the people here. NERI also highlighted the fact that, as a region, we are living with the consequences of Budget choices that are beyond our control. Those choices include spending money on militarisation rather than front-line services, leaving us with less money to spend on our hospitals, schools and roads.

As a local Assembly, we have, in recent years, managed to alleviate some of the harms caused by the British Government that worsened existing poverty levels. For example, we introduced welfare mitigation measures. As the reports make clear, however, the finance available to us locally means that we simply cannot mitigate many of the negative spending decisions taken in London. That has been reinforced in recent months by the inflexibility shown by the Treasury on the structure of the local growth fund. Despite strong and repeated representations from locally elected representatives and from the community and voluntary sector about the need for change and the harm that the new model would do to that sector, the Treasury would not move. That funding is, of course, supposed to be the replacement for what was lost by the community and voluntary sector from the EU following Brexit, and it already falls short of what the sector received then. That is another example of this region having to deal with the impact of a decision that was not voted for by the people who live here.

NERI and the Fiscal Council also point to the current needs assessment of 124% as not taking into account our structural needs or our historical legacy. I therefore commend the current Finance Minister and his predecessor for their efforts to make the case for a new fiscal framework. To date, that has resulted in an additional £1·3 billion for our public services. All Departments have expressed the view that the draft Budget does not meet their financial requirements, and that is reflected in both reports; indeed, the Fiscal Council has stated that we are at high risk of an overspend. That is why it is crucial that we all support the efforts of the Finance Minister and the wider Executive in their request for additional funding to enable a multi-year Budget to be achieved and for a fiscal framework that goes beyond mere per head comparisons of public spending, which NERI has referred to as being a "blunt instrument".

Last week's election results in Scotland and Wales have further shown that the current constitutional framework is cracking at the seams, as people realise that those in London govern in the financial and economic interests of a chosen few in England. Ultimately, until we have constitutional change, our public services will continue to suffer as we try to mitigate decisions made in Westminster.

Mr Frew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Justice): I welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion as the Chairperson of the Committee for Justice. For some time, the Committee has been supportive of calls for a multi-year Budget. We have heard from organisations across the justice sector that believe that a multi-year Budget will help with long-term planning. It will not, however, take away from the fact that significant budgetary pressures will still exist. The recurring theme in all our budgetary briefings has been the historical underfunding of the Department, which is seeing pressures build across the justice system.

The Department's budget is mainly demand-led, and the majority of its resource allocation is taken up by funding the PSNI and prisons, by spending on courts and tribunals and by legal aid expenditure. As Members will know, demand across all those areas is ever increasing. Therefore, while a multi-year Budget is to be welcomed, it needs to be adequate to meet ongoing and increasing needs. Failure to ensure that will result in further delays, further pressures and, inevitably, further problems in years to come. Such things have real-life impacts and consequences for our citizens.

Some aspects of the draft Budget proposals are welcome, including the earmarked funding for the PSNI workforce recovery plan across the three years and the allocation of £119 million that the Executive have agreed to provide for the PSNI data breach settlement in 2026-27. Leaving those and other ring-fenced funding aside, the Department has advised that the indicative Budget allocations equate to year-on-year increases of 2·9%, 4% and 1·9% against the 2025-26 opening Budget baseline. Any increase is welcome, but that falls well short of what is required. The Minister has indicated that the indicative allocations would leave the Department facing pressures of £101 million in the first year, rising to £215 million by 2028-29. By the end of the multi-year period, the shortfall will equate to the annual budgets of the Prison Service, the Probation Board, the Youth Justice Agency and Forensic Science Northern Ireland combined.

The Minister has advised that it is difficult to see how the Department will manage to live within its resource budget. She has also advised of an annual shortfall in capital funding of £150 million that, she advises, will severely restrict plans to transform, modernise and reduce operating costs across the justice estate. The Committee has heard that not all inescapable bids have been met and priority will have to be given to contractually committed expenditure. The Department may need to pause or stop a number of important, high-profile projects, such as new prisoner accommodation, redevelopment of the courts estate or the proposed new PSNI training college.

The Department paints a difficult picture, but the comments received from non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) are no more positive. While welcoming the certainty that a multi-year Budget will bring, each highlighted significant concerns for their organisation, with some indicating that it may be difficult to fulfil statutory obligations or meet their Programme for Government commitments. The chief inspector of Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJINI) went as far as to suggest that an insufficient budget allocation could be seen as fettering that office's independence, which is clearly a serious matter for us all. Regrettably, there is no time today to highlight other bodies' concerns that were expressed in Committee, but they have been set out in our submission to the Committee for Finance.

The Minister has pointed out to the Committee that the possible consequences of the draft Budget could be catastrophic and risk setting back the transformative work that has been undertaken over the past 10 years. The Committee recognises that that is a challenging position for the Department and shares the concerns about the impact that the proposed Budget may have on organisations across the system and their ability to deliver statutory functions, as well as on access to justice and public confidence in the justice system. We will continue to monitor the Department's prioritisation and financial planning to ensure that key priorities are funded to deliver effective outcomes across the justice sector.

Speaking as a DUP MLA, I think it is fair to say that we are tremendously worried and concerned about the fact that we do not have a Budget in place that is agreed across the Executive. I fear for the fundamentals of governance if we cannot get to a position that is agreed by all Ministers and one where all Ministers are sufficiently satisfied with their lot.

Mr Tennyson: Like others, I welcome the opportunity to reflect on the Finance Committee's report on the draft Budget, although it is incredibly disappointing, as others have reflected, that we do so in the absence of agreement on a Budget more than a month into the new financial year. That delay is creating uncertainty and operational risk across all Departments and all public services as well as for our constituents, who rely on those services. It is not as simple as saying that the Budget should just be agreed as it stands; we must be clear that that would mean cuts to public services of upwards of £700 million in the first year. I do not think that any of us in the Chamber would wish to advocate or stand over such an untenable and unsustainable position.

The current proposals create serious difficulty for every Department in meeting statutory requirements, but the most extreme example is the situation facing the Department of Justice. As the Chair of the Committee has just reflected, at the end of the three-year Budget cycle, the shortfall facing the Department would be over £210 million, which is equivalent to the budgets of the Prison Service, the Probation Board, the Youth Justice Agency and Forensic Science combined. That is not a workable or credible proposal. No amount of prioritisation or transformation in a Department would lead to that scale of savings. Since the devolution of policing and justice, the Department's budget has been squeezed from 11% of the block grant to just 8%. Significant reform and transformation has happened in that time, but there comes a point where you are no longer trimming fat and all that is left is muscle and bone in the system. We have reached that point. I acknowledge that significant progress was made in the previous Budget — we were able to start recruitment to the PSNI again, and money was made available for the data breach — but all of that good work would be undone in one fell swoop by the proposals on the table.

There has been a lot of debate in recent weeks about whether blame for the current crisis rests with Stormont or Westminster: the truth is that it rests with both. Decades of stop-start government, which has deprived the Executive of key opportunities to transform public services, combined with over 14 years of austerity, have left the Executive in that position. We are often told that there is an issue of credibility when it comes to the Executive's relationship with Treasury, but let us be clear: credibility cuts both ways. A bit like Pavlov's dog, politicians here have been conditioned to believe that they have to elevate financial or political issues to a crisis in order to get engagement and response from Treasury, which will get its cash book out to patch things up temporarily. That is what happened in 2023, when there was a short-term cash injection. However, the funding formula that was set out at Hillsborough Castle failed to deliver the long-term baseline funding and the fair settlement that public services and the people whom we represent deserve.

We also fall into the trap of thinking that the only way out of the crisis is through revenue-raising. I have been open about thinking that progressive revenue-raising that ensures that the wealthiest in our society pay their fair share is a good thing. However, the idea that people in Northern Ireland, who deal with lower median wages and huge challenges with poverty, including fuel poverty, and inequality, should plug gaps created by Treasury is nonsense. The Treasury's open-book exercise, which was published in recent weeks, was an insult to the people of Northern Ireland. It was complete rubbish. It was cack-handed and inaccurate and did nothing to engage seriously with the structural issues facing our society and economy. It is not credible to say that public-sector workers should bear the brunt of the crisis. If we removed pay parity, which was one of the Government's proposals, we would see an exodus of public-sector workers over the border to work in the Republic of Ireland.

We need to see stabilisation funding, with a view to longer-term funding, from Treasury. The Executive need to take responsibility for issues such as the transformation of public services. It is regrettable that, last week, the DUP and Sinn Féin voted against amendments that would have brought greater transparency and accountability to our politics to ensure that they are delivering. We need to move away from the cycle of patch-ups and towards a credible Budget, a fair funding settlement, real transformation and, importantly, political structures that will support that change.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: As Question Time begins at 2.00 pm, I suggest that the Assembly take its ease until then. The debate will continue after Question Time, when the next Member to speak will be Robbie Butler.

Mrs Little-Pengelly (The deputy First Minister): As an Executive, we are committed to delivering what matters most to communities, including tackling racial inequality, eradicating racism and promoting good race relations. As part of that, a comprehensive review of the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 has been completed, alongside a public consultation. The resulting policy proposals, which are substantial and, in some cases, complex, are under consideration. In parallel, a 12-week public consultation on a draft framework for race relations and associated delivery plan commenced in March of this year. All of that work reinforces our commitment to building a better future where everyone, regardless of race or ethnicity, can thrive and contribute meaningfully with a genuine sense of belonging.

Mr McMurray: I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. Have all of the Ministers in the Executive Office now agreed on what form that update will take?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. Yes, that has been circulated to all Ministers, who have scrutinised it. It is complex, and there are a significant number of technical amendments to it. The idea behind it was to make sure that we were not going to continue to fall behind some of the legislative changes elsewhere across the United Kingdom. That has been examined in detail. Some of them, as I have said, are very technical, and we are working through those at the moment. There has been, as the Member will be aware, a very firm commitment to doing everything that we can to support eliminating racism and to support people, no matter what background they are from and what they are. This is only one part of a number of different initiatives that we have been driving forward from the Executive Office.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Deputy First Minister, we have witnessed racism and sectarian attacks, whether they have been in Derry, north Belfast, Larne or Ballymena. Can you, as deputy First Minister, ensure that a refreshed approach to race relations will be effective in building a society free from racism, sectarianism and, indeed, xenophobia?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Thank you. It is really important that this House stands together and sends that clear message against all of those things. We know that racism, sectarianism and that type of prejudice blight lives and ruin communities. There are social cohesion issues. Communities need support, and we must be there to support them in trying to make sure that everyone in that community can have that brighter future.

There are significant opportunities with the drafting of the revised Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC) good relations strategy — T:BUC 2. We are looking at that, not only to extend it across the traditional communities here in Northern Ireland but to ensure that it is in the mainstream and that good race relations are embedded in the strategy and delivery framework.

Mr Frew: On the topic of race relations and, indeed, the concentration of immigration, can the deputy First Minister update the House on her recent engagement with communities in Ballymena that were affected by last year's summer disorder and advise what practical support TEO is considering?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his important question. We saw significant disruption last summer in his constituency, in the Ballymena area. It is incredibly important that we get out and speak to people who live and work in those communities about their issues and concerns. I believe that people are sick, sick, sick of not being listened to by their elected representatives, not just in Northern Ireland but across the United Kingdom. It is important that all of us get out.

I thank the Member for bringing me out on the ground in Ballymena, speaking to organisations, including women's groups and community organisations, and young people, and listening to the issues that really matter to them. We need to wake up and listen to the fact that people have genuine concerns about social cohesion. People are absolutely sick, not only of not being listened to but of being called racist or being dismissed when they are articulating genuinely held concerns. We need to listen to people and step up to that challenge, and, working with my colleague, I am determined to do so.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The review of SIB recognised the value of the organisation for the Northern Ireland Civil Service and the wider public sector. However, it also suggested that there is a need to consider its ongoing strategic role and made recommendations in that respect. We are clear that SIB has a key role to play in providing strategic advice on capital investment, supporting delivery of major projects and developing innovative approaches to support Executive priorities. That must be the focus of its work, and it will be important that incoming board members are aligned to that strategic role. As such, we are considering proposals for a public appointment competition, which will take the findings of the review and the future strategic role of SIB into account.

Mr Baker: Minister, how, then, do you justify the failure to appoint candidates deemed suitable to the Victims and Survivors Service (VSS) board two years after a completed public competition in which they were told that they were successful?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: As the Member will be aware, it is incredibly important that we get the right people when appointments are being made. With regard to the initial question, I was referencing the SIB appointments. The review highlighted a significant amount of valuable work that the Strategic Investment Board does. However, I do not need to tell anybody across the Chamber about the frustrations that we all have about delivery, particularly of key capital infrastructure, so things need to change. I believe that the Strategic Investment Board, with its statutory responsibilities to help us to drive forward and deliver, particularly on capital infrastructure, has a pivotal role to play. The discussion that I had with the First Minister on that issue was about making sure that we get the right people for the SIB board. That extends to the Victims and Survivors Service board: we need to get the right people in order to deliver whatever we task them with.

Ms Bradshaw: Minister, do you have updates on the publication of the investment strategy? There is a key role for the SIB board in setting its direction, and this would be the right time for that strategy to come forward.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The investment strategy is an important aspect of what we are trying to do, and I commend all who undoubtedly put a huge amount of work into the draft strategy. I want a strategy that sets out for the people whom we serve across Northern Ireland what we are going to do on the big issues. We have been constrained time and again because of the Budget, but we still have to set out clearly what we are going to do to tackle, for example, waste and water over the next five to 10 years. What are we going to do to ensure that, when the Executive agree to build roads, they can be built and not stopped in the courts? What are we going to do to ensure energy security across Northern Ireland? How are we going to support our farmers and our businesses? Those are key issues. It can be good to get strategies and all the detail out there, but I want an investment strategy that actually works, sets out what we are going to do and is connected in a real way to the funding that could be available.

We had developments recently with the prospect of a three-year Budget, the challenges that we are currently facing and, of course, the legal challenge in the courts to the A5 judgement. Those are critical to our capital investment plan, which is why we are actively reviewing that in light of what is happening.

Mr Dunne: The SIB has responsibility for the delivery of major infrastructure projects. However, some, including the A5 and many other important road projects, are stalled due to climate change legislation. That is not helped by the head-in-the-sand approach from some if not all Executive parties around its negative impact. What can be done to unlock that?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: A lot can be done. My party, the DUP, has ambitious plans for transformation and reform. People out there are deeply frustrated by what they see as a lack of delivery, and that is not because of the structures but because of the processes that we have in each and every Department.

I have the privilege of working with two Ministers from my party, in Education and Communities, who are driving forward an ambitious agenda in those Departments. You are absolutely right: we have a series of key roads infrastructure projects that are currently suspended and awaiting the outcome of a legal case. I have said to the Infrastructure Minister and every member of the Executive, "Instead of putting our future in the hands of a court decision, let us get on and make the amendments to the climate change legislation to unlock that critical road infrastructure for the people of Northern Ireland". Indeed, safety cannot and should not wait for the judgement of a court when people in the Chamber can do something about it.

Mr O'Toole: Deputy First Minister, you are very keen to talk up your desire to sell Northern Ireland, and, from your social media, one would believe that you are the only Minister who tries to sell the place. That seems to be your self-definition. However, you have just said that you and the First Minister clearly cannot agree on appointing members to the SIB. You cannot agree the publication of an investment strategy. You cannot even agree on the publication of a three-year Budget.

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

Mr O'Toole: What does it say to potential investors in this place when the shambolic Executive that you lead cannot agree any of those things?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: That is not the case at all. Let us take a look at the record of agreement. We have agreed a Programme for Government and nine key priorities: everything from tackling health waiting lists to affordable childcare for families to growing our economy. Yes, there will always be some things that we do not agree on. However, as highlighted, we are discussing, for example, the SIB appointments to make sure that they are fit for purpose. That is why I am in this role. I am not here simply to rubber-stamp things that come through my desk but to scrutinise them and make sure that what we do matches the outcome that we want to see. I want to see delivery. I want to see progress, not process. I want to see each and every Department delivering against what we have agreed in that Programme for Government.

In the next couple of weeks, we will release our Programme for Government report, which will highlight a wide range of progress against a number of targets. However, we must do more. That means a willingness and real focus from each and every member of the Executive.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Transforming public services is an Executive priority, which is why, in March 2025, £129 million was allocated to six significant transformation projects to tackle some of the highest-profile challenges facing our public services, including in Health, Education, Justice and Infrastructure.

The delivery unit is supporting implementation of these projects by driving and monitoring progress, with an emphasis on translating investment into service improvement, and we are seeing the difference. Over 900,000 citizens now have access to at least one multidisciplinary role in their GP practice, an increase of almost 20% since March 2025. Over 4,000 criminal justice cases have been diverted, freeing up significant policing hours. The unit regularly reports to us and the transformation board, ensuring transparency on delivery, performance, benefits realisation and emerging risks. Later this month, we intend to publish an annual report on the transformation fund that will set out the progress that has been made to date.

Mr Beattie: I thank the Minister for her answer. In many ways, she has answered my supplementary question, which was about the specifics and how we measure those outcomes. Minister, given the finite amount of money that is being used for this delivery unit over a five-year period, are there any plans to increase that funding?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Absolutely, in an ideal world, we would increase funding. However, this is the challenge that we have always faced and will continue to face. Bringing about transformation requires investment. However, keeping front-line services going requires funding. At a time when we are fiscally constrained, it is exceptionally difficult to do that.

I welcome the engagement from the Health Minister. Looking at what has come through from the Department and delivery unit about progress on health waiting lists, I can see that it demonstrates that where you ring-fence funding — the funding for health waiting list transformation was ring-fenced in the previous Budget — you will see real and tangible benefits for people.

We have to do both together. I will always fight and argue for more funding for transformation, because that is the only way to reach sustainability. However, I am also very conscious that increasing that pot will require additional help and support from the Treasury. We are working on that, but I am not entirely optimistic that we will get significant amounts above and beyond what we need to keep our public services going in the next 12 months.

Ms Murphy: What value does the delivery unit provide that could not be provided by Departments?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: As I have already said, things take much too long, and people are deeply frustrated by a lack of delivery. At times, I am deeply frustrated by how long things take. We cannot continue to do things as we have been doing them. We have to have change. We have to place a focus on delivery. That is why, at an early stage, the First Minister and I had discussions about what we could do to create game changers in the system that, although small, would bring about transformation.

I often refer to the big issues as being like big ships that we need to turn in the harbour, but we know, from looking at experience elsewhere, that delivery units can be the tugboats that support the making of tangible difference on key issues. That is what we need. It is not just about sitting at the centre in the Executive Office but about working across Departments, breaking out of silos and bringing about the results that we want to see.

Ms Forsythe: Over the weekend, we saw significant election results in England, Scotland and Wales that show clearly that people are frustrated by government's lack of delivery. What can you do to ensure that we deliver fundamental reform and see transformation across the public sector?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: It is an exceptionally important issue. I commend the Member for all the work that she is doing on the Finance Committee to drive the agenda of transformation, efficiency and reform across our Civil Service and public sector. As I said, we cannot continue to do things as we have done them. We have to have fundamental change. People are fed up with our tinkering around the edges. They want something significant. They want game changers. They want us to wake up, cut through the processes and make progress on the things that will improve their lives. I have continuously pursued that mantra, as has the Member, and I know that our party, the DUP, will continue to push for that being done. In the Executive, it is critical that we work with the Finance Minister, the First Minister and the head of the Civil Service to drive the reform agenda across every Department and every aspect of our public service.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The central good relations fund provides support to groups in the community and voluntary sector to deliver good relations projects where there is evidence of identified good relations need. Since 2016, we have provided over £30 million in funding to support more than 950 projects, impacting on 320,000 people. The community organisations that are supported by the fund work incredibly hard to address good relations issues here, and I thank them all for the work that they do.

Discussions on the wider budget position are ongoing. We hope to notify successful applicants to the fund as soon as possible.

Mr Kearney: Gabhaim buíochas leis an leasChéad-Aire as ucht a freagra.

Minister, I fully endorse what you said about the achievement of the fund in getting £30 million of investment into communities, benefiting 950 projects. Can you be more specific and give us a precise time frame within which we will know which projects' applications for 2026-27 have been successful?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: As the Member is undoubtedly aware, his party colleague in the Department of Finance has produced a draft Budget but has acknowledged the difficulties with it and the significant gap in funding. That means that we have not secured a Budget for this year, which makes it difficult for any Departments to give onward confirmation to organisations. Just last week, we met the permanent secretary of the Executive Office. We engaged with her and other officials to ask what can be done in this period of comparative uncertainty to give at least some certainty and to get some funding out in the interim. We will continue to work on doing that.

Mr Kingston: The central good relations fund has not been confirmed because the Executive do not have an agreed Budget. I am conscious that the Executive are engaging with the UK Government on next steps. What is the deputy First Minister's message to the Prime Minister to ensure that we achieve agreement and get a Budget that delivers for the people of Northern Ireland?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question, which is, of course, important but also timely. There is no doubt that, following the elections just last week, we have seen growing frustration with the Prime Minister across Great Britain. We have raised that issue with the Prime Minister since he came into office two years ago. The reality is that, without economic growth, there are limited opportunities to invest in public services, and people are seeing that. We need economic growth across the United Kingdom, including in Northern Ireland. That means that we must have a Government who put in place the right foundations, policies and Budgets for economic growth. That is what I want to see.

Through the elections in Great Britain, the people of the United Kingdom have sent the message to the Prime Minister that they are sick of Starmer's stagnation on economic growth and the economy. We need significant change, not just another reset or more tinkering around the edges. We need a fundamental change in the Government in order to unlock economic growth across the entire United Kingdom.

Mr Dickson: Many organisations that deliver work under the central good relations fund need to heat and light their offices to deliver services in the community. Will the fund recognise and reflect the constraint in budgets and the fact that many such charges are rising through the roof?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Thank you. As the Member will be aware from his time on the Committee, the central good relations fund is an in-year fund that is designed to support flexibility for organisations to identify particular needs and to apply for funding for an in-year project. It is not core funding. I acknowledge, however, that organisations' core funding has also been squeezed. There is no doubt that everyone feels that squeeze through staff wage increases, energy cost increases, food inflation and lots of other issues. I hear from organisations on the ground that the need that is presented to them has increased. I thank them for the incredible work that they do in very difficult circumstances.

Unfortunately, due to the Budget situation, I cannot give a commitment that we will be able to increase that fund. We are certainly looking at ways to drive efficiency across all our funding schemes, particularly in the administration of all our funds, in order to maximise the amount of money that we can give out to those on the front line.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 5, 6 and 8 together.

The £50 million defence growth deal has the potential to deliver a wide range of economic benefits. I was pleased to join the Defence Minister, Luke Pollard, and the NIO Minister, Matthew Patrick, at the defence growth deal's launch on 22 April and to see at first hand the breadth and depth of opportunities that it presents for local companies. The deal places a strong emphasis on capability-building, innovation and skills pipelines to further enhance what we have to offer. It includes a targeted programme to help start-ups and small to medium-sized enterprises enter the supply chain, ensuring that they can avail themselves of the many available opportunities.

We are globally recognised for our commitment to developing world-class, innovative technology for the aerospace, defence, security and space sector. The deal will help to ensure that we can reach our full potential.

Mr Brooks: I thank the Minister for her answer. We have an Economy Minister who is AWOL at best and a First Minister who talks down investment in this place. I can only imagine that the aerospace and defence sector, which is an anchor of employment in my constituency, is dismayed. Does the deputy First Minister agree that we need to speak up for and promote Northern Ireland and our economy across Government, particularly in the Executive Office?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: As I outlined in a previous answer, economic growth is incredibly important. It is what brings in the taxes that enable any Government to invest in their public services, creates the jobs for young people who are coming through and creates the robustness in our economy that keeps young people here rather than having to go away. The aerospace, defence, security and space sector has a critical role to play in that. I am proud of that sector. It has depth, innovation and excellence. I have worked very closely with ADS Group in Northern Ireland, which is seeing more and more companies come forward that are included in those supply chains.

Of course, those companies play a pivotal role in global security. The reality is that there are existential threats to many countries on the eastern front of the European Union. There is concern and a growing defence budget because countries want to protect their citizens. With the greatest respect, countries cannot protect their citizens with best wishes and breadsticks; they have to protect their citizens through strong defence. Global conflicts have an impact here given the cybersecurity attacks and disruption around undersea cables. It is not only a necessity but we have a duty to stand up and support our businesses that are prepared to provide security, support and defence for all citizens across these islands.

Mr Brett: First, I pay tribute to you, deputy First Minister, for engaging with the Ministry of Defence. Despite the population here representing only 3% of the UK's population, Northern Ireland has, through your work, secured 25% of UK-wide funding on this important aspect. Since becoming joint head of Government here, deputy First Minister, you have taken every opportunity to turn up, stand up and speak up for Northern Ireland.

Mr Speaker: Is there a question, Mr Brett?

Mr Brett: Will you commit to continuing in that vein and delivering for everyone in Northern Ireland?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Absolutely. That sector employs thousands of people and brings a huge amount of funding to Northern Ireland. It is full of innovation, skill and depth, and I am deeply proud of it. The sector defends the lives of people in Ukraine and beyond, and it brings security to a very unstable world. I will always turn up, stand up and speak up for all our sectors, including our aerospace, defence, security and space sectors. I look forward to going to Farnborough air show in the summer to do that. I will meet potential investors and support and champion our businesses, because I am really proud of Northern Ireland, and I will always take the opportunity to champion our businesses, our sports and our sectors.

Mr Harvey: Deputy First Minister, you will be aware of the Government's plan to make defence an engine for economic growth. With a Northern Ireland focus on cybersecurity, what more can the Executive do to leverage our status as a global cyberhub?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: You are absolutely right. Given the global instability and conflicts, spend on defence is increasing. It is increasing in NATO countries and, as I said, on the eastern front of the European Union. It is increasing in every country that is trying to protect against cyberattacks and to protect its citizens. There will be huge growth in the sector in the next while. We all hope for peace, but we must be realistic about the real threats to our citizens. Therefore, I believe that the Economy Minister must make it a key sector. It is a key growth sector in a challenging global investment context. We must support it, because that growth will bring real benefit for the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr Sheehan: Does the deputy First Minister have any concerns about the increased focus on militarisation and defence funding at a time when the British Government's focus should be on supporting the Executive to deliver essential public services and support hard-pressed families, businesses, students and farmers?

Mr Speaker: OK, Mr Sheehan. We need to get to the answer.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: You asked me whether I have concerns. I know who has concerns: the people of Ukraine when they see Russia roll tanks over their border and try to kill their citizens; the people of Ukraine when they see drones trying to kill them; the people of Poland; and the people of Latvia. Every single day, those countries feel the threat of conflict, once again, on their very doorstep. I know who is really worried: those who see the cyberattacks that are designed to bring people on to the streets in democracies and destabilise the very heart of what we are and what we try to do in democratic Parliaments. We should be concerned about that. Countries invest in defence because those threats are real. While his party may not stand up to defend Northern Ireland citizens who feel those threats — his citizens and that party's citizens — I will. We cannot defend our citizens and support those who are under real and genuine threat with just best wishes; we have to support actions that will bring real benefit and support and provide defence on the ground and in cyberspace.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: With your permission, I will ask junior Minister Bunting to answer the question.

Ms Bunting (Junior Minister, The Executive Office): The strategic framework to end violence against women and girls (EVAWG) is focused on preventing all forms of violence, abuse and harm against women and girls. We have not commissioned or undertaken research that focuses specifically on sibling violence.

However, as part of the second EVAWG delivery plan, we are working with partners and other Departments to identify gaps in the research and evidence to inform our research priorities going forward.

Mr Speaker: We must move to topical questions.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The reality is that they are democratic processes, and we will respect their outcome. I will work constructively with whomever the public democratically puts up, which is all about championing what is best for Northern Ireland. As I have said many times, I see my role as standing up and speaking up for Northern Ireland and all our sectors, our businesses and our sports; that is what I am here to do. I will work constructively on that in the future.

Mr O'Toole: You talk about democratic choice, but do you accept that, were Nigel Farage to become Prime Minister — a large number of people here clearly do not want — [Interruption.]

Members of your party may chunter about that. They never learn their lesson. A decade after flirting with right-wing English nationalism, here we are again. Do you accept that, if people here do not want to live in a country governed by Nigel Farage, it is their right to choose a new Ireland that is back in Europe?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: One thing I know for sure is who the SDLP flirted with: Starmer's Labour Party. Not only did you praise and highlight time and time again the fact that it is your sister party — it is not just a flirtation; it is a marriage — you crossed the floor of the House to sit with that party. It is, frankly, embarrassing that, before Prime Minister Starmer and his Government came into power, the SDLP said to everyone

that it would have influence on the Labour Party and that it would be good for Northern Ireland. It has been a failure [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Can we hear the deputy First Minister? Can we have a little less noise?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: If anybody should talk about flirtations with political parties, it should not be the Member. His relationship with the Labour Party has brought about precisely nothing for Northern Ireland. All he has been able to achieve is Starmer's stagnation of the economy, and, instead of standing in the Chamber and lambasting everyone else, perhaps he could go to the leader of his sister party at Westminster and ask for a bit more than a fundamental reset and actually start delivering for the people of Northern Ireland and, indeed, the entirety of the UK.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I was pleased to see that there were clear pro-union majorities in Scotland and Wales. Of course, the First Minister and I have very different views on this. However, instead of listening to the spin, spin, spin, which is all about putting momentum behind destroying and pulling apart the United Kingdom, we should look at the facts. It is a fact that the SNP's seat numbers and popular support fell, and a strong pro-union majority voted in Scotland. It is a fact that a strong pro-union majority voted in Wales.

We have a First Minister in Scotland who wants to be the First Minister for Scotland; we have a First Minister coming into office in Wales who wants to be the First Minister of Wales; and we have a First Minister in Northern Ireland who wants to be First Minister for abolishing Northern Ireland. That is not something that the people of Northern Ireland genuinely deserve. I will be here, standing up for Northern Ireland. The future is bright for Northern Ireland. I am deeply proud of so many things that have happened in the past — our businesses, our economy, our achievements — and I know that Northern Ireland has a positive, strong and secure future within the Union of the United Kingdom.

Mr McAleer: I thank the Minister for her answer. If unionists are so confident in their not-so-United Kingdom, does the deputy First Minister support calls for the people here to decide our collective futures in a unity referendum, as set out in the Good Friday Agreement? [Interruption.]

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I will reiterate: a strong pro-Union majority voted in Scotland, and a strong pro-Union majority voted in Wales. There is a strong pro-Union majority across this United Kingdom. Unionism is the largest designation in this place, and Northern Ireland is led by a joint and co-equal First Minister who is also a strong and passionate unionist. Northern Ireland's future and the future of the Union of the United Kingdom is strong, and, every day, I will continue to fight for that strength and support across the United Kingdom. However, I will say this: the people whom we serve want us to get on with doing the business of government. They want us to get on with fixing our health service, improving education and growing our economy, not running off, at the first little chink, and trying to talk about the abolition of the very place that we are elected to serve and to try to make work.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I recognise the importance of that agenda; indeed, it was my proposal to set up an Office of AI and Digital. When our Chief Scientific and Technology Adviser (CSTA) came into place, she was tasked with bringing forward that strategy. They are key and new initiatives by the Executive, contained in our Programme for Government. A detailed strategy has been brought forward, and that is under consideration. I am optimistic that we will be in a position to launch that publicly for consultation very shortly. I commend the CSTA for the huge amount of work that she has done. I recognise that a number of people have come on board and freely given their time to contribute to the draft strategy. That has been very valuable in this important area of work.

Ms Nicholl: I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. I agree that the CSTA has done impressive work. What is the deputy First Minister's assessment of how that office is resourced and of whether it has enough people and resources, given that the South is on its second iteration of the strategy, Scotland is on its third and we still do not have ours published? Do we have enough resources going into the office?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: It is an area that requires significant investment and will do so in the years ahead. However, there is also an important balance to be achieved between having a stand-alone unit that will drive some of that progress and monitor the implementation and, on the other side, recognising the importance of AI being mainstreamed in Departments and agencies as business as usual. From speaking to and engaging with the CSTA, I think that her strong view is that it needs a dedicated resource to get it going and to continue to drive it forward, but, ultimately, success will be AI being mainstreamed in each Department and considered not as something exceptional sitting in a central unit but as something that is very much business as usual in every Department every day.

Mr Speaker: The fourth topical question has been withdrawn.

Miss Dolan: I have a simple question for the deputy First Minister.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: As I understand it, discussions are ongoing on the issue with the Economy Minister, if I read the public statement correctly. I understand that it was originally funded by the Department of Finance, that funding came to an end and that it had been embedded within the Department for Communities. It is an issue for those Ministers to respond to.

Miss Dolan: As far as I am aware, the funding from the Finance Department to Communities came to an end a number of years ago. The Líofa bursary scheme, Arlene Foster's infamous "crocodile" comments, "Curry my yogurt", the GAA, the Place-Name Project: does the deputy First Minister accept that her party's issues with the Irish language and identity are less about process and funding and more about the deeply ingrained sectarian and anti-Irish mindset of political unionism?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: It is disappointing that we hear the attempt time and time again to stir up issues from the past to paint a particular picture. It is distraction and deflection from the fact that, for Ministers in the Member's party, there is a real struggle when it comes to delivery in some Departments. I will take the example of the A5, which sits with the Department for Infrastructure. I have put a solution to that issue to the Minister for Infrastructure: rather than waiting for her fate to be decided in the courts, we can take action to amend that legislation and provide certainty to allow those roads to go ahead. I say this to the Member: instead of coming into the Chamber to play politics, deflect and distract, I advise her to speak to her colleagues about getting on with delivery. The Education Minister and the Communities Minister from my party can do that, so the Member and her colleagues should talk about delivery instead of criticising other people.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: That is a really serious issue. We do not want to see young people partaking in that type of activity on the streets of Belfast or elsewhere. Over recent years, we have seen it flare up from time to time, and I am conscious of videos of incidents in Bangor, for example. This time, it was in east Belfast. It is fuelled by a range of things. It looks as though it was fuelled partly by alcohol and I am not sure what else.

The key message is that such behaviour is not wanted on our streets. We have a number of really good community organisations working with young people, and there are really good results coming out of that. Through the funding streams in the Executive Office, we will do everything that we can to make sure that we have the right help and support in the right places; that, where we can, we are looking at diversionary activities; and that we are working to make sure that there is community resilience both in the general community and among our young people so that they do not get dragged into that type of behaviour. It is not acceptable; it is absolutely wrong; and it is not wanted by the communities in which it happens. Often, the problem is caused by people from outside those communities who come in. Just a few weekends ago, we saw it in Londonderry, when a small community in the Fountain was threatened. Such behaviour is not acceptable, and we should do everything that we can to support those communities.

Mr McReynolds: Thank you, deputy First Minister. As already mentioned today, community and voluntary groups are yet to receive their letters of offer of funding through central good relations funding or other programmes such as the minority ethnic development fund, both of which ensure that grassroots services can proceed without risk of closure. When will they receive those letters or at least a letter of comfort?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: As I indicated earlier in Question Time, we have tasked the new permanent secretary of the Executive Office to work with the particular branches on all those funding schemes. I know that some other Departments have been able to give out letters of offer to give some form of comfort, even for an interim two-month period, and I have asked them to actively look at that to see what we can do to ensure that some of the schemes can go ahead. We know that the later some of the projects start, the less impactful some of the interventions could be. Therefore, I want to try to get that support out to them despite the ongoing difficult budgetary situation.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: What Northern Ireland really needs is a First Minister and deputy First Minister for Northern Ireland, not a First Minister for the abolition of Northern Ireland. We should be unashamedly proud of this place: I am. I will always turn up, stand up and speak up for Northern Ireland. I count it as a huge honour and responsibility to get the opportunity to do so. I want to see economic growth in Northern Ireland for absolutely everyone: unionist, nationalist and neither. That is the best way to stabilise this place and provide a better future for absolutely everyone, and that is what I am focused on doing.

Mr Dunne: Thank you for that, deputy First Minister. Despite significantly more votes for pro-Union parties than separatists in Scotland and Wales, nationalists are pretending that the Union is somehow under strain. Can the deputy First Minister confirm that, given the joint nature of the office, the First Minister will not be able to use the Executive Office to advance such an ideology?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: As outlined, in the Executive Office, the First Minister and I have different views on this. However, I will mention a number of key things. First of all, as outlined, Northern Ireland is led by a coequal First Minister and deputy First Minister. I am a unionist, and Michelle is a republican. We are not led by a nationalist. Secondly, Scotland has been led by a nationalist SNP First Minister for 20 years. That party's vote and number of seats have gone down.

In Wales, what is absolutely clear is that, although there was a pro-Union majority out voting, split unionism cost those parties the First Minister position. The lesson for everyone in Northern Ireland is that split unionism costs seats and costs pro-Union parties the First Minister position. What happens then? The moment that someone gets the position of First Minister, they run off and try to build momentum that does not exist and to spin a reality that bears no relation to the facts.

I believe that the Union is strong. I believe in working together across the United Kingdom. Most of all, I believe in being deputy First Minister for Northern Ireland and in supporting everyone in Northern Ireland.

Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle

, I will answer questions 1 and 5 together.

The damage that has been caused to our roads by prolonged bad weather at the beginning of the year is well documented. I subsequently established the winter recovery road fund specifically to address the damage in areas that were worst affected. The additional funding allowed the Department to deliver an enhanced package of structural maintenance work. That was predominantly made up of large-scale patching, extending existing resurfacing work and bringing forward work that would otherwise not have been completed in this financial year. Some of that work will have addressed existing recorded potholes and some will have repaired potholes that had not yet met the criteria but that undoubtedly would have become actionable in the coming months.

Crews have been out working hard to repair defects. The figures speak for themselves, with 10,000 repairs having been completed in eight weeks. Repairs have taken place right across the North. I am pleased to note that a portion of them were in my Department's eastern division, which covers the Member's East Belfast constituency. Officials have also undertaken works in that constituency, including large-scale patching on Bloomfield Parade, Mourne Street and Chamberlain Street. A significant resurfacing project was also carried out on the Ballygowan Road, which, along with the other repairs, has improved the quality of roads for the Member's constituents.

In addition to the funding and to enhance long-term improvements to the road network, Members will be aware that I am progressing the publication of the Department's new maintenance strategy, which will be supported by a full digital survey of all roads. The consultation on the strategy closed on 30 January. I am now working closely with officials to finalise the draft consultation report. Once it is published, my Department will be in a strong position to progress a modern, data-driven approach to road maintenance across the North.

Road network resilience also requires adapting to extreme weather events and reducing multiple risks, including flooding, erosion and slope failure. My Department is taking forward addressing those risks through the third climate change adaptation programme (NICCAP3) actions and the development of our first resilient road network plan. It is working with the Climate Change Committee (CCC) and academic partners to keep planning and investment evidence-based.

Building long-term resilience into the road network also depends on having in place the right people with the right skills, which is why workforce recruitment and development is a key part of my approach.

Mr Brooks: I thank the Minister for her answer. I am glad that some progress has been made. Members who drive through my constituency will know that there is still some way to go, however.

Minister, when the issue was raised amid the chaos of February 2026, you stood in the Chamber and assured Members that they could engage with their local offices if there were any issues. Since then, your Lisburn office in particular has refused to engage directly with Members or to provide updates. Will you assure the House that you will speak to your officials and undertake to ensure that the Lisburn office in particular engages with Members and provides updates as necessary?

Ms Kimmins: As the Member has rightly said, I have talked in the Chamber about the importance of communication with local section offices. I will certainly take the Member's comments back and ensure that the matter is addressed.

It is also important to understand the severe resource pressures that there are across our workforce. As I have said, that is why we have a recruitment campaign under way. There has been quite significant interest expressed, so I hope that we will see good results from the recruitment process as we come out the other side. I recently met road workers at the Sprucefield depot to hear from them about the challenges that they face and about some of the depletion of the workforce in the past decade or so. That has had a real impact. I hope that we will see a marked improvement if we can get new people in post. We are moving through the recruitment process very quickly. As the Member will know, interviews took place at the end of April. We saw really good indications of the numbers that will potentially be recruited. I have been assured that they will make a real difference. I appreciate the Member's raising the issue.

Mrs Mason: I thank the Minister for her update. I will just state that our local offices are extremely helpful and engage with us regularly.

Minister, you mentioned the recent recruitment campaign. Can you give us an update on its progress to recruit industrial road workers?

Ms Kimmins: As I said, Roads staffing across the North has seen significant issues for many years now. It is important to note that industrial road workers undertake a vital role in our operational services. The recruitment campaign that the Member mentioned further demonstrates my commitment to improving our network for the benefit of all road users.

As I said in the previous answer, interview open days were held in Ballymena on 27 and 28 April, with appointments likely to be in June, following successful completion of the pre-employment process. The new, innovative approach has been piloted in the Ballymena area and has both increased the number of candidates and shortened the recruitment process. There was a positive response to the campaign, with over 500 applications submitted when the campaign was advertised. Around 300 applicants were invited to interview over the course of two days. Once the scheme has been fully evaluated and its benefits documented, that approach may be used in similar recruitment campaigns in the future.

I talked to staff on the ground and heard about the impact of the number of vacancies across DFI Roads, and that really struck a chord with me. I recognise that it is something that we can deliver on. I have given the commitment to do that because the more that we can build our own departmental resilience, the more that we will see a marked improvement in our road network and the services that the public deserve and expect. We will also build up the morale in our teams, which have been significantly depleted for many years. I hope to bring further and more positive announcements on that in the coming months and that we will be better prepared going into the winter period.

Mrs Guy: Given the constrained budget context facing the Minister, the quality of repairs carried out by her Department must give constituents confidence that money is not being wasted. Recently, in Moira, the repairs carried out on footpaths to make them safe were so poor that they created a hazard. What is the Minister doing to claw back public money that has been wasted on shoddy workmanship?

Ms Kimmins: The Member will know that that issue has been raised for some time. We have a process in place to try to inspect the quality of repairs. The Member will appreciate that it is not always possible to get to every repair, but we do take a portion of that.

The new strategy is key to delivering things in a more resilient and sustainable way so that we will not have those issues. In some cases, we have seen temporary repairs being done, whether to roads or footpaths, to make them safe until a proper, permanent repair can be done. We appreciate issues of poor repairs being reported and fed back so that we can rectify them, particularly if we need to engage with an external contractor to deal with that. I am not overly familiar with the work that the Member specified, but if there is anything further that I can do to feed back to DFI Roads, I am happy to do so.

Ms Kimmins: I recognise the view held by elected representatives and the public that a fixed crossing at Strangford could bring benefits of connectivity, support for local businesses, tourism and wider economic opportunities for the Ards peninsula, and I welcome continued engagement on matters of local and regional importance.

My Department’s transport plans are the primary mechanism through which future transport needs and investment priorities are identified. The connection between Strangford and Portaferry does not form part of the regional strategic transport network and would, instead, be considered in the eastern transport plan that covers Ards and North Down and the Newry, Mourne and Down local transport plan.

As the Member will know — we previously debated the issue in the Chamber — the Department examined, at a high level, the case for a fixed crossing at that location. Most notably, the 2013 strategic review of the Strangford lough ferry service considered alternatives to the ferry, including a bridge, and concluded that a fixed crossing could not be justified on value-for-money grounds when assessed against expected demand and the continued availability of the ferry service at that time. More recent, high-level estimates have suggested that the cost of a bridge could be in excess of £500 million.

Within the current strategic planning and funding framework, no immediate transport need for a fixed crossing at Strangford has been identified to date. It is also important to note that Strangford lough is subject to significant environmental protections. Any proposal for a major fixed crossing would therefore face additional technical and environmental challenges that would need to be carefully considered as part of any future assessment.

Officials continue to engage with the relevant councils and other stakeholders as the transport plans and associated local development plans progress, and they will consider all relevant evidence and representations within that strategic framework. My Department will continue to keep its position under review as those plans are developed and will work with everyone involved to see what the best outcome will be.

Miss McIlveen: Ards and North Down Borough Council, along with Newry, Mourne and Down District Council, have passed DUP motions supporting a fixed crossing between Portaferry and Strangford, and even though Strangford is no longer in the constituency of the Sinn Féin MP for South Down, he has come out and endorsed the plans. The Minister has highlighted that it would improve connectivity and that it would be good for tourism and economic development. Given the Minister's party position on the issue along with ours, will she commit to commissioning a full economic appraisal of the proposal?

Ms Kimmins: The Member may be aware that I have agreed to visit Strangford this week in an effort to look at the situation. I have been invited down by an elected rep. You will probably get notification of it closer to the time. I confirm my commitment to looking at the potential. I am happy to keep it under review. We will work with everybody involved to see what may be possible.

Miss Hargey: I can attest to the fact that Strangford is a lovely part of the world. Minister, as part of your consideration, will you look to review the sailings, specifically the early morning ones?

Ms Kimmins: That issue was raised with me recently, and I have asked my officials to look at it. As you will know, the ferry continues to provide a dedicated and reliable crossing service between Strangford and Portaferry. During the 2025-26 financial year, at least one ferry was available for 99·82% of all scheduled sailings. That shows its importance. I have asked for a light-touch survey to be carried out to assess the demand for additional sailings and to see whether we could put those in place. I await the outcome of that survey, which will inform my decisions on the next steps.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, forgive me, but I am slightly confused about your position. Your answer seemed to indicate that it is not part of the Department's eastern transport plan, but you also seem to be saying, "but you never know". Can you be clear: do you support the commissioning of a feasibility study? That would be helpful for the record, because I am not totally clear on your position.

Ms Kimmins: To be clear, I have said that we have based our position on previous assessments, but we continue to keep it under review as more evidence and information come to light. As I said, both councils are in the process of developing their transport plans, which is the mechanism for any new proposals. We will work with Ards and North Down Borough Council and Newry, Mourne and Down District Council. Elected representatives across the board have raised the issue, so I know that there is an appetite for it. Therefore, it would be remiss of me to say that we are not looking at the issue. It is important that we look at it again and see what is possible. With regard to the provision of a definitive answer on the next steps, we need to get more information and then decide where we go next.

Ms Kimmins: There has been an upward trend in expenditure on road-related vehicle damage compensation since the 2020-21 financial year. In the 2023-24 financial year, expenditure on vehicle damage compensation for the North was just under £1 million. During 2024-25 and 2025-26, vehicle damage compensation was just over £1 million. By comparison, the five-year average annual expenditure since 2021-22 was around £810,000 per year. There are a number of reasons for the increase, including rising repair costs. However, the primary driver is the corresponding upward trend in the number of claims received by my Department.

As we have said previously, claims can increase due to external factors that are beyond our control, including the severity of weather conditions in recent years; increased traffic volumes; and greater public awareness of the right to submit a claim, as, for many years, people did not realise that they could. I acknowledge that, alongside that, historical underinvestment in the maintenance of the road network has contributed to deterioration in parts of the network across the North and had an impact.

To mitigate the immediate impact on our network of the poor winter and the years of underinvestment, I announced additional funding of more than £40 million, which has gone some way to making long-term improvements. As the Member will know, I am also progressing the publication of the Department's new maintenance strategy, supported by a full digital survey of all roads. That is a sustainable way to improve road condition over time, to minimise defects and to reduce the number of claims and the compensation expenditure, while improving safety for everyone who uses the network. It is important to say that we are doing all that with a very constrained budget, as an effort to do as much as we can with what we have.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for her answer. Given the recurrent cost of around £1 million a year in reimbursement for damage to vehicles, we find ourselves in a really unsatisfactory position. In my constituency office, I find that there has been an increased volume of work. It is not just about the amounts being repaid to members of the public but the staff time required to deal with those complaints. The actual damage is getting worse. People have had issues with multiple wheels, their suspension and wheel realignment. There are towing and recovery costs, and some things have been refused. There is a lot of going backwards and forwards. The true cost of dealing with —

Mr Speaker: A question, Ms Forsythe.

Ms Forsythe: — those claims is significantly more. Will the Minister undertake an assessment of the full cost of the claims that are made and the processes of dealing with them for her Department?

Ms Kimmins: You have clearly outlined the impact that this has across the service that we try to provide. That is why it is important that we do all that we can to ensure that people do not have to make a claim in the first place.

I have outlined clearly what I have done in recent months and what I intend to do as we develop and implement the new strategy. We are trying to recruit more staff, which will mean that people can get to the repairs more quickly and have a more responsive approach from the Department, and we are looking at how we can secure additional funding to make sure that we are not in this position next year and that we build that resilience for the future. That is my priority at the moment. However, I am happy to speak to officials to see whether we can encapsulate what that impact is, but, at this point, I want their focus to be on getting the work that we need to do done so that we reduce the number of claims in the future.

Miss Dolan: Minister, what are your plans to improve the condition of the road network and minimise the number of road-related claims and the expenditure on compensation?

Ms Kimmins: As I said in response to a previous question, we are finalising a draft strategy that aims to introduce a more modern, data-driven approach to maintaining the road network and ensure that our resources are used more effectively and efficiently. That is about raising maintenance standards by delivering higher-quality, longer-lasting repairs and targeting investment where it is most needed. I have said before about the impact of going out to fix one pothole but skipping others. Through additional funding in recent months, we have been able to ensure that, when we go out to a site, we do more than that to ensure that we do not have to come back.

The strategy also embeds environmental and financial sustainability, including reducing carbon impacts, strengthening resilience to climate change and developing long-term investment plans. Overall, it sets out a comprehensive vision to create a safer, more reliable and future-proofed road network that supports economic vitality, social connectivity and community well-being so that we all have access to good-quality, safer roads. That is my focus. I hope that, with the cumulation of the new strategy, the use of data and the digital survey, enhanced recruitment and staffing, and, if we can get it, enhanced investment, we will see a marked change.

Mr McMurray: Minister, how will you gauge success? Will it be about the actions around strategies or actual targets relating to reductions in compensation or potholes?

Ms Kimmins: It will be when we start to see a real difference in the quality of the roads. As elected reps, we will hopefully see a very different outcome from what we have seen for a number of years — over a decade, I suppose. We have seen it year after year. The Department will use a number of metrics to see what the success is. When we developed the road maintenance strategy, a pilot was done in the Ards and North Down area. Certainly, the feedback that we got on that was very positive, because people saw the impact. Based on that, we are moving forward with this, and we can confidently say that, if we are able to implement it properly, it will make a real change. I am happy to provide further information on the detail on how that will be measured to the Member, but the measure of success will be if we are standing here and we see a real difference by this time next year. I hope to be, in that context, able to say that we have seen a change, particularly after a winter period. That in itself will be a testament to its success.

Mr Stewart: I declare an interest: my car has been in the garage for six weeks, having hit two potholes — two craters — in my constituency. I look forward to getting it back.

Minister, spending £1 million a year on compensation is bad enough, but we know that three quarters of compensation claims are not paid out. That means that our constituents are paying up to £3 million a year themselves, or else their insurance companies are, which means that their insurance premiums are going up. That is simply unacceptable. We already know that our roads are in a terrible state. Will you review the criteria to ensure that the people who are entitled to compensation through no fault of their own get it and are not made to jump through hoops in order to do so?

Ms Kimmins: I appreciate that. We have had many discussions about that issue. The other side of that is that this is public money, and we have to ensure that we are following the correct processes, so that money is paid to those who are entitled to it. I am not suggesting that people who have made claims and have been turned down are not entitled to that. However, the Member will appreciate that we have a fine balance to strike in order to ensure that we are doing that correctly. If there are specific cases in which people have been turned down, having provided the evidence that they were asked for, I will be happy to ask the Department to review them. I am also happy to look at particular areas of the criteria that could be tweaked in order to avoid those circumstances. As I said in my previous answers, my focus is on ensuring that people do not have to make claims in the first place, and they should be used only as a last resort in cases where repairs have not been done in a timely manner.

We have had an uphill battle in relation to the condition of our roads. Staff have been working extremely hard with a limited budget, and we have tried to enhance that as best we can. There is no doubt that that has made a difference, but there is still a lot more work to do, and I am committed to ensuring that we do everything that we can to get that done.

Mr McGlone: Minister, you gave some detail as to the damages paid out per annum. Picking up on what Mr Stewart said, are you able to detail the percentage of those claims that have been rejected in that period, and whether there are specific geographic locations where the rejection rate is higher than it is in others?

Ms Kimmins: The Member will appreciate that I do not have that information in front of me, because his question is quite specific. If he wishes to submit a question for written answer, we can get accurate figures. If there are any trends or patterns that relate to specific areas, we can look at them.

Ms Kimmins: I was pleased to note that Kilrea Bridge reopened to traffic on 18 February 2026, following the substantial repair works that were required. Whilst the main structural works to stabilise the wall have been completed, with width and weight restrictions lifted, a number of minor construction activities continue, including masonry repairs, masonry parapet construction, the repointing of the south-west wing wall, kerbing and resurfacing. During this period, a temporary barrier remains on the carriageway in order to protect the workforce and road users.

Any further traffic management measures that are required in order to undertake the works will be of short duration and will be carried out during off-peak hours to minimise any further disruption. In the interest of public and workforce safety, I continue to appeal to motorists to comply with the ongoing restrictions on the bridge until the works are complete.

Ms Hunter: Thank you, Minister. I have spoken to local traders who have told me that, after experiencing half a year of disruption, footfall has not returned to normal and journey times are still taking a little bit longer. What engagement have you had with local businesses in the Kilrea area, and what has your Department learned about communicating with local businesses ahead of and during roadworks that might have a direct impact on them?

Ms Kimmins: We have seen lots of instances across the North where major works have been required and, undoubtedly, caused disruption. In recent months and since I came into post, I have been contacted by a number of representatives about not only Kilrea Bridge but some of the other major works across the North. I fully appreciate that communication is absolutely key, and where that has not met the expected standard, I will always take that back to ensure we can rectify that or learn from it.

Businesses have been impacted on, as have people's daily lives and commutes, so communication has been vital. If there is anything else to learn from that project, I will be happy to take that on board. We always have to be conscious of the impact on people. The other side of that is that the bridge repair was essential work. It is about trying to get the right balance between the work having to happen and managing the wider public's expectations, being conscious of the impact and how we best mitigate that in order to minimise disruption as far as possible.

Mr McGuigan: As you have indicated, Minister, the closure of the Bann bridge at Kilrea has had a serious impact on the businesses and residents of Kilrea. Whilst, as you have said, the closure was absolutely necessary for safety reasons, it has flagged up the very real need for a new bridge at Kilrea in order to meet transport needs in the area. Have you had any engagement with Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council on its work to include a new bridge in its development plan, and will you support that?

Ms Kimmins: As I said, I fully recognise the significant impact of the bridge closure on residents, businesses and the wider Kilrea community. I understand why the council is seeking to look at longer-term solutions for the area. I absolutely welcome the council's engagement on the matter. As with the Strangford issue, there is a desire to reflect local needs and future transport considerations through the council's emerging local development plan. Any decision on new transport infrastructure must, of course, be considered through the appropriate strategic planning and prioritisation processes. In that context, any proposal brought forward through the council's local development plan should be consulted on in the normal way to ensure that it aligns with my Department's emerging strategic transport plans. As I said, Kilrea Bridge is now open. The main structural works have been completed, and the Department has no plans for a new bridge at present. However, we will continue to engage with the council on that and on its work on its local development plan to see what comes from that.

Mr K Buchanan: Minister, on the topic of bridges, it is great to get Kilrea open. However, the traffic flows down into mid Ulster and then cannot get across a bridge with a weight restriction outside Coagh. It has had a 7·5 ton weight restriction for 11 years. Will you provide an update on that, please? I appreciate that you may not have the detail in front of you. It is killing farming and heavy transport. All the traffic goes through Coagh because of the weight restriction. We have had no answer for 11 years. We need the bridge to be upgraded.

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for raising the matter. I do not have the information in front of me, but I will respond in writing to give him an update. Hopefully, that will help to move things on.

Ms Sugden: Minister, can you clarify who, if we envisage a new bridge at Kilrea, will be responsible for building it? Will it be the council or the Department for Infrastructure? Your answer to the Member for North Antrim suggested that you are trying to pass the buck.

Ms Kimmins: I was absolutely not trying to pass the buck. I outlined the processes that are required for any new transport proposals for council areas. That is the purpose of the local development plans: they feed into and align with our wider transport plans. If things are done in isolation and do not take into consideration the wider network and wider development in council areas, that can have a negative effect and be counterproductive to what we are trying to achieve across the board. I was saying that the proposal that is put forward through the development of the council's local development plan will help to inform where we go next on the issue.

Ms Kimmins: My Department has a statutory consultee and oversight role in respect of local development plan documents that are prepared by local councils. In that role, my Department engages with councils on local planning policies across a wide range of topics, including where plan documents incorporate specific policy for managing the impacts of houses in multiple occupation, or HMOs, as they are more commonly known.

Responsibility for preparing LDPs rests with individual councils, reflecting the intent of planning devolution in 2015 to place plan-making and decision-making with democratically elected local representatives. LDPs remain the most appropriate mechanism by which to manage the location, scale and concentration of HMO development through evidence-based local policy that responds to evidence of localised impacts. My officials have engaged with Belfast City Council and Derry City and Strabane District Council plans, which introduced specific policy measures to address HMO overconcentration. Those approaches were examined through independent examination, and both were found to be sound prior to adoption.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Minister for her answer. She will know that the overconcentration of houses in multiple occupation has greatly irritated not only my constituents but many constituents across Northern Ireland. Her Department is responsible for overseeing planning policy pertaining to HMOs in local councils. With only two of the 11 councils having bespoke policies to deal with overconcentration, does the Minister accept that its not being dealt with across the board is an issue, and is her Department providing enough information to ensure that councils are well equipped to deal with that major issue?

Ms Kimmins: As I said, the responsibility for preparing LDPs rests with councils, reflecting the intent of planning reform and transfer to place plan-making and decision-making with the democratically elected representatives on those councils. We devolved planning to councils to allow those who probably have the best knowledge of their area to be part of that decision-making. Nothing in the Department's strategic planning policy statement, the regional planning policy or legislation prevents councils from bringing forward locally tailored HMO policies through LDPs, where evidence supports a policy response, as every council area will have different characteristics, different issues and different needs. It is important to note that not all councils have yet published planning strategy documents.

The two that I mentioned have done so.

As I said, not all councils have faced the same level of HMO development. Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council, for example, has not identified it as a local planning issue. Instead, it will rely on general housing and amenity policies in the plan to manage impacts on residential character, environmental quality and amenity. I expect that, on some of the councils on which the Member has colleagues, such issues will be brought forward. They will then be considered as part of the work that councils are doing.

Mr Speaker: We will move on to topical questions.

Ms Kimmins: I do drive on the roads of Newry and Armagh, as I do on the roads right across the Six Counties. A significant amount of work is being done on roads right across Newry and Armagh, which I am sure that the Member has seen. It is well documented at this stage that we have significant issues because of underinvestment in our roads for many years. As I have said before, the issue has not arisen just this year. I have been focused on ensuring that we get additional investment so that we can try our best to tackle the issue within the resources that are available to us.

The scale of the problem is huge. There is no doubt about that. I have, however, seen a marked improvement in many areas. There is still a lot more to do, and I am committed to doing it. I have outlined in responses to previous questions the steps that I am taking to ensure that we make a difference before we enter the next winter period.

Mr McNulty: Between April 2020 and March 2025, there were 20,000 public liability claims made for damage caused by potholes and road defects, costing £20·6 million in payouts. Surely that money would have been better spent on fixing the roads. Almost 50,000 defects were reported between December 2025 and February 2026. In 2025, 100,000 potholes were recorded, with the Newry, Mourne and Down District Council area being the worst affected. Minister, are you driving on different roads than I am? Will you commit to getting the roads fixed and resurfaced before the bad weather comes?

Ms Kimmins: I have just explained what my commitment is, and what it has been for some time. We are working extremely hard. The resources are simply not there, but are we trying to make a difference? We absolutely are. We are looking at how to do so differently, within a very constrained budget. Investment, staffing, and ensuring that what we do is of a high quality and uses all the new innovations and technology available to us are key. I have outlined time and time again in the Chamber all the steps that my Department is taking.

I will continue to seek further investment. I want the roads to be brought up to a standard that is rightly expected and needed, but I hope that every Member will support me when I look for additional funding. That is key to getting us to where we need to be and to getting what the public deserve. That call also needs to be made very strongly to the British Government so that the Executive Budget is increased to reflect properly what the people of the North deserve and what we should be able to deliver for them.

Ms Kimmins: The shortfalls in waste water infrastructure investment are well documented. We continue to work with NI Water and others to try to secure the investment that is needed and to find other ways in which to address the issue. The Member will be aware that I recently introduced the Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill — better known as the "SuDS Bill" — which looks at other ways in which to tackle our waste water challenges. In isolation, that legislation will not resolve all the issues, but it will help. I attended a Rivers Trust workshop last week, at which there was a real appetite for doing more of that work on a larger scale. It could really make a positive impact.

We continue to lobby for additional funding. I have been working with Executive partners to look at what else we can do to address some of the water quality and pollution issues at Lough Neagh specifically. I am working with NI Water to see not just what it is able to deliver out of the funding that we have but what it could do if we were able to secure more funding so that, should more money become available, we have a plan in place that is ready to go.

I have also been speaking to colleagues in the South. We had North/South Ministerial Council meetings last week at which we discussed how we could work across this island on other ways in which to make a real impact and to secure additional funding. Through our engagement with them, the British Government and Treasury know that funding is a major issue.

They are very aware of the significant investment that is needed, and we continue to raise that case loudly and clearly so that they know. Without the investment needed, and if we cannot get to grips with the challenges around waste water, everything else is impacted on. It is not just an issue for me in the Department for Infrastructure; it is an issue for housing, for development, for health and so on.

There is a real onus on all of us to move this forward. I am certainly committed to doing that. I will continue to work with Executive colleagues, but the British Government need to get real. They need to understand —

Mr Speaker: Minister, your time is up.

Ms Kimmins: — and appreciate the scale of the challenges that we face.

Ms Sugden: As with all MLAs across the House, the number-one issue that comes into my constituency office is housing, and we are being told that more houses cannot be built because the waste water infrastructure simply is not there. Given the engagement that you have undertaken with the various stakeholders, which you outlined in your answer, how confident are you that we will get the money needed for this investment so that we can start building much-needed houses across Northern Ireland?

Ms Kimmins: Over £1 billion is required, and that cost keeps going up the longer it takes to get there. We have made some progress, and it is important to say that, both when John was in post as Infrastructure Minister and since I have come in, we have been able to secure in-year funding, which unlocked capacity. You will be aware of the Derry housing schemes of over 3,000 units. We are already above what was targeted in the original PC21 set out by NI Water, but we have still so much more to do. The scale of the challenge varies across the North. I have been trying to get that plan in place so that we can step through it and also so that, when additional funding is available, we are ready to hit the ground running and work with NI Water. It is also looking at innovative ways of doing more with less funding and trying to make progress.

My approach is that I recognise that, at this time, I do not have all the funding needed and that it is not likely to come any time soon. However, I have to keep making progress. We are not moving at the pace that I would like to see, but my commitment is absolute to making progress on this important issue and to working with everyone who will work with me to get there.

Ms Kimmins: Well, as the Member will know, that position has been beyond my control. It has been through the courts, and we are now in the middle of an appeal. I absolutely wish that the road had been built by this stage, and it should have been built. However, there has been a concerted effort, resulting in delay after delay, from people who just do not want to see it built. It is important to say that it is a huge amount of money, but there is no price to put on a life. Therefore, we have to continue to work hard to make sure that the road is delivered, and that is certainly my focus.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for her response. Does she accept that it was failings by her and by the AERA Minister and the direct impact of unrealistic climate targets that led to the case being lost in the High Court?

Ms Kimmins: The Member will not be surprised to learn that I absolutely do not accept that. Our efforts to combine on the appeal show how determined we are to get the road built. A huge amount of work went into the original case, from which there was a very disappointing outcome. However, we are determined that we will get through this, and we will get the road built. As I have said previously, for me, the priority is saving lives. We will continue to move forward on this. We will use all our resources to submit the strongest appeal, and, hopefully, we should get a positive outcome. My commitment is that, regardless of the outcome, we will continue to move forward to get the road built and ensure that no more lives are lost.

Ms Kimmins: Phase 1 is progressing at pace and is due for completion by 2030: on-site surveys got under way in June last year; the outline business case was approved in December; and detailed design began in April this year alongside land acquisition activity. I am determined to build on that progress so that we can get it delivered within the originally outlined time frame. Any deviation from that would only cause further delays. It is much required and people really want it, so it is important that we continue to move forward on the agreed position.

Mr Kingston: Minister, you are dismissive of the suggestion, but there is no progress on the ground and we have seen a series of delays. The target date has slipped from 2027 to 2030 and, now, possibly to 2033. It will be a very limited service if it cannot overcome restrictions in the area of Belfast Zoo on the Antrim Road. I still argue that the Shore Road route option should be looked at, as it is much more deliverable and practical.

Ms Kimmins: The delay that the Member talks about from 2027 to 2030 was as a result of a collapse of the Assembly that his party instigated. Since coming into the post, I have ensured that we have moved ahead with this. Phase 1 is on track for delivery by 2030. Both routes were assessed during the process. We discussed why the Shore Road is not the proposed route when I first made the announcement last year. I stand by that. We are committed to continuing with the work and making sure that we get it delivered.

Ms Kimmins: As the Member may know, we have been working on a planning improvement programme for the past year or so. We have seen good results so far. It will take time for that programme to be properly felt on the ground, but we have seen early indications that, in recent months, our major projects have met their targets for the first time, which is a clear indication that the concerted, ongoing work with councils is having an impact.

I recognise that issues around statutory consultees remain a challenge. We implemented the statutory consultee forum in an effort to address that challenge and to work with all consultees to understand the issues regarding delays and how we can work to solve or address them. We are seeing improvements, and I continue to get feedback about those improvements. I will be happy to provide the Member with further information, but please be assured that we have been looking at this for some time, because I want to see significant improvements in the planning system.

Mr Harvey: Minister, often when responses do come, particularly from your Department, it is evident that little thought was given to the issues flowing from the individual application. What can be done to ensure that responses are meaningful and not mere copy-and-paste templates?

Ms Kimmins: I am not sure what the Member is alluding to, but I will be happy to receive more information if there are specific cases where that has been an issue. Importantly, planning was devolved to councils because councillors, who are democratically elected, have a real grasp of their areas. The Member and I were on councils at the same time, so we know that, at the grassroots level, councillors are best placed to understand local needs, particularly when it comes to planning. They have provided valuable input in the 11 years since planning was devolved, and that has to be reflected on. We, as the Department, have to ensure that the policies that are set out are adhered to. That may come across as "copy-and-paste", but it is important that we outline why decisions are taken and what they refer to. I will be more than happy to look at any specifics that we can provide feedback on.

Ms Kimmins: On the first part of the question, I have been getting a lot of correspondence on this. I am happy to continue it. We had a fulsome discussion on the issue a number of months ago.

In relation to the question on waste water, the Member is aware that there are closed catchments across the North. We are looking at how NI Water can address those through targeted investment. Therefore, it is something that I can speak to NI Water about and get further detail on that issue in particular if it affects the ability to eliminate those vacancies and, obviously, improve businesses in the area. I am happy to come back to the Member on that.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That ends Question Time to the Minister for Infrastructure. Members may take their ease for a wee minute.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: As I indicated before Question Time, the next Member to speak is Robbie Butler, Chair of the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee.

Mr Butler (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Committee on the motion.

A multi-year Budget has been generally welcomed for strategic planning and transformation. The lack of multi-year Budgets is cited to us by rural groups as a significant issue for forward planning, and I think that that is the case for just about every Committee. Unfortunately, the Committee has, as yet, been unable to take a position on the draft multi-year Budget. At the time when we were asked to respond to the Committee for Finance, we were advised that DAERA officials were working through the draft Budget with the Minister and were sadly unable to attend an evidence session with us. The position remains unchanged. Last Thursday, officials again indicated to the Clerk that they are still not in a position to come to the Committee and that the Minister is still considering internal capital allocations to 2029-2030, we believe. A number of other Departments did not seem to have the same issues and held evidence sessions with their respective Committees. Given that one of the roles of the Committee is to support the Minister and his Department, it seems perplexing that he and his officials would not seek Committee input to discuss the issues and the proposed allocations.

I will highlight a few issues from the Committee for Finance's report. I thank the Finance Committee for taking the lead on the overall scrutiny, and I thank the public finance scrutiny unit from the Research and Information Service (RaISe), which has completed six papers on the draft Budget. The Finance Minister highlighted that the Chancellor's autumn Budget had led to an additional £372·3 million of Barnett consequentials. I think that the Chair of the Committee alluded to around £400 million, but the reality is that, when taken over a four-year period, it falls far short of what is needed. From the outset, resource and capital funding bids significantly exceed the available budget. That seems to be a bit of a rinse-and-repeat for us. After providing funding for the departmental baselines, oversight bodies etc, there remains around £1·3 billion, £1·8 billion and £2·3 billion over the three years to honour previous Executive commitments and to provide additional allocations. The Committee is pleased to note that those commitments include areas such as agriculture, agrienvironment, fisheries and rural development. Also, additional commitments have been suggested for Executive earmarked funding, including around £15 million for Lough Neagh. The Committee for Finance report also notes that the capital position is more challenging than the resource position and that we could be facing a 40% reduction in spending power by 2930.

The Committee for Finance report notes that the Ulster University Economic Policy Centre believes that continuous small cuts are no longer enough and decisions are required to stop some activities altogether. We wish to engage with officials to see what that looks like with regard to the DAERA portfolio.

The report also notes that the Nevin Economic Research Institute (NERI) argues that Northern Ireland needs to clearly state:

The AERA Committee has been doing exactly that through, for example, its scrutiny of inheritance tax issues. We have also held discussions on the recent increases in fuel and fertiliser prices with the Economy Committee, and we look forward to engaging with members of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Committee at the Balmoral show this week.

The Fiscal Council highlights the fact that the true level of need here exceeds 124%; the AERA Committee highlights the fact that at least some of that need arises from our significant rurality.

Over the mandate, the AERA Committee has highlighted the need for long-term ring-fencing of the agri-budget; the desire of young people to get into and stay in farming; the support needed for nature-friendly farming and improvement of the environment; the support needed for the fishing and aquaculture industries; and the need to deal with bovine tuberculosis (bTB), given the increasing cost of that programme.

That ends my comments as the spokesperson for the Committee. I will take the final 60 seconds to speak succinctly — my partner Steve Aiken will speak more for the party — in a party capacity.

Having spent 10 years as an MLA, I find it difficult to comprehend that we could be looking at emergency measures if no Budget is agreed. Year after year, we come here to talk about the need to agree a Budget, and we now have the opportunity to agree a multi-year Budget. If we come into this place in 2027 — if we are returned by the electorate — and have failed to agree a Budget, we will be complicit in the further deterioration and degradation of our services, which has been significant. I ask all Executive parties and, indeed, the Opposition to consider the geopolitical instability and the pressures that we all face, to look at the levers that we have here, to be grown up and mature and to get around the table and agree a multi-year Budget.

Miss Hargey: I welcome the debate and, indeed, the Fiscal Council's report and the Committee's work over the past couple of months. Members have touched on presentations and comments on the Budget from the likes of the NERI. They all highlight the starkness of the Budget situation that the Executive find themselves in. It is a constrained financial position that means, put simply, that we do not have the appropriate amount through the block grant to deal with the demand and pressures on our public services. That has been exacerbated, as was said, by over 15 years of austerity during which successive British Governments have stripped out vital public services and resources. That was followed by COVID and the cost-of-living crisis, which, due to the illegal war in Iran, has been sharpened in recent months by spiking fuel costs that are hurting workers, families and communities. Our public services here are not immune to those global shocks, as we see from that spike in fuel costs.

We have witnessed the British Government's failure to respond to those rising costs and the hardship across our community. That shows a complete disconnect between Whitehall and the reality on the ground felt by communities, workers, local businesses and, of course, our front-line public services. The same disconnect is shown in the British Government's attempt to respond to the fiscal situation here by repeating their script that the Executive have received a record settlement and need to agree a Budget and just make the tough decisions — language and a script that the Opposition here are only too happy to adopt and to parrot.

We know that the funding formula used here is flawed, and it is people here who feel the consequences of that. Last year, the Finance Minister, with the support of the Executive, laid out to the British Government the underfunding situation and our level of need. The British Government again attempted to distract and to parrot the old lines that we get more money here than those who live in England. That was disproven when the Finance Minister secured the fiscal framework and an acknowledgement that we were indeed funded below the level of need and that our need would rise to 124%, which, of course, it did. However, that is still below what Scotland and Wales get.
The Barnett formula drives fairness on the basis of comparison with services delivered in England, but we know that our history, our geography and, indeed, our need here are not reflected by that formula, nor are they comparable with those of people who live in England. We must also recognise that, recently, the British Government had to give English councils over £2 billion because they, too, were struggling with the budget that Westminster had given them to sustain their public services. That is on top of a crumbling NHS and waste water infrastructure that has been privatised and stripped of funding: out of the public purse and into shareholders' pockets. Despite the funding challenges here, we have stood against such privatisation of our waste water infrastructure or any attempt to shift the financial burden to workers and families. Inside and outside the Chamber, others have championed water charges, cutting wages and sacking public-sector workers. Sinn Féin will continue to resist those regressive policies.

As I have said, last year, the Executive stood together when arguing for a needs-based funding formula. In recent weeks, again, they stood together to highlight the challenges of the current Budget, and they have asked for a direct meeting with the British Government and the British Prime Minister to discuss the dire fiscal situation. It is time for the British Government to proactively and meaningfully engage with the Executive. The British Government must change their direction of travel and properly fund our public services.

Recent elections in Scotland and Wales have shown what we have known in the North for a long time: Westminster has not acted, does not act and will not act in our best interests. We will not wait for Westminster. We will not be the afterthought in their regressive decisions, and we will not stand by and watch while the Government there manage decline and insular politics. We have an alternative: constitutional change whereby our future interests would be decided by people here. In the interim, we will continue to work and fight for our public services and for a fair funding settlement that meets the needs of our workers, families and local businesses.

Mr Bradley: I would welcome a three-year Budget, as would most in the House. As a member of the Committee for Communities, I welcome the principle of such a Budget. Greater financial certainty would allow Departments, councils and community organisations to plan more effectively and deliver projects more strategically and sustainably.

While the principle is welcome, the reality is that the Budget falls short of what is required. There is growing disappointment in the Executive's overall approach to the process. Given the pressures facing households, public services and communities, people expected a more credible and deliverable financial plan. The Department for Communities has responsibility for housing, welfare support, regeneration, anti-poverty work and employment programmes. A clear gap remains between the expectations placed on the Department and the funding allocated to it.

One of the clearest examples of that is benefit delivery. While the proposed £8 million allocation is welcome, it falls significantly short of what is required. I am aware that around 70% of universal credit claimants do not receive the in-work support that they need because of staffing pressures and insufficient parity funding. At a time when Northern Ireland continues to experience high levels of economic activity, that should concern every Member.

Housing and homelessness remain among the most pressing issues that face communities across Northern Ireland. Social housing waiting lists continue to rise, homelessness pressures are increasing and demand for temporary accommodation continues to grow. The Committee has heard clearly that bids for homelessness support, Supporting People — [Interruption.]

Sorry, I forgot to switch that off.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Do not worry. It happens to us all.

Mr Bradley: The Committee has heard clearly that bids for homelessness support, Supporting People programmes and discretionary support have not been met. There is also a major shortfall in social housing funding. Current allocations fall well below what is needed to meet Programme for Government (PFG) housing targets. Failure to properly invest in social housing will only increase homelessness pressures and place further strain on public services.

Communities want to see delivery, not repeated announcements. Towns, including my town, Coleraine, continue to struggle with vacant premises, declining footfall and lack of investment confidence. Regeneration projects must be realistic, transparent and properly funded.

I am concerned at the lack of dedicated funding for the anti-poverty strategy and the disability and work strategy, despite both being recognised as Executive priorities. Strategies without funding risk becoming little more than aspirations.

Finally, the community and voluntary sector continues to provide critical front-line support in areas such as mental health, addiction, food poverty and youth services, yet many organisations are being trapped in cycles of financial uncertainty.

Ultimately, the Budget must be judged on whether it delivers real outcomes for communities across Northern Ireland. There remains a serious concern that the Department for Communities is being asked to do far more than the funding provided will realistically allow. The proposed multi-year Budget does not adequately meet the Department's funding requirements and will therefore force difficult decisions to be taken, which will impact on services across Northern Ireland. The consequences will extend beyond the Department and affect key Executive priorities, including anti-poverty measures, disability employment support and housing supply.

As a DUP MLA, I strongly recommend a realistic Budget that sees tough decisions being taken and priority allocations being made that reflect the needs of everyone in Northern Ireland.

Ms Bradshaw (The Chairperson of the Committee for The Executive Office): On behalf of the Committee for the Executive Office, I thank the Finance Committee for its work on its report, for helpfully sharing information on budgets and financial matters and for bringing the motion to the House.

The Committee for the Executive Office considered written and oral briefings from officials on 4 February 2026. Members noted that the Executive Office budget for 2026-29/2030 is challenging. During the briefing, the Committee noted that the resource baseline is extremely challenging across earmarked and non-earmarked funding, as it is for all Departments.

The non-earmarked resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) baseline is £85·6 million per annum across the Budget period, and additional bids have identified amounts of £16·5 million in 2026-27, £20·5 million in 2027-28 and £24·1 million in 2028-29. Current pressures include statutory commitments for the rights and languages bodies and the Climate Commissioner. Other key pressures include pay inflation, the expansion of delivery under ending violence against women and girls, Communities in Transition programmes and good relations initiatives, as well as the implementation of the racial equality strategy and the north-west development fund.

The allocation for the ending violence against women and girls delivery plan does not provide the full amount that was requested for 2026-27. That is extremely concerning, given that femicide rates continue to rise in Northern Ireland, with 30 women killed here since 2020. The Committee will continue to raise that issue with the Department. In the past, the Executive Office has been reliant on in-year allocations to fund and continue key programmes. Members are concerned that the progress achieved in previous years could be lost if programmes are scaled back or delayed as a result of reduced or uncertain funding.

Members also noted that resource DEL requirements across the Budget period indicate a total need of between £153·9 million and £194·5 million over the three years. Those pressures are driven primarily by growth in the victims' payments scheme, the establishment of the truth recovery inquiry and its redress scheme and the need for PEACE PLUS match funding. The establishment of the truth recovery inquiry will be a milestone for victims and survivors of mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and workhouses.

The total identified capital DEL need over the Budget period is £19·1 million in 2026-27, £12·6 million in 2027-28, £11·3 million in 2028-29 and £12 million in 2029-2030. Those requirements are driven by investment in Urban Villages, Ebrington, the Maze/Long Kesh site, various lease renewals and the establishment of the Climate Commissioner. The Committee will closely monitor those capital requirements.

As the House is aware, there is no agreed Executive Budget for this year or the remainder of the spending review period at this time. Difficult decisions will follow, and discussions between our Committee and Ministers will need to be had to ensure that the departmental budget is adequate.

I will now make some points in my capacity as an MLA about the DAERA budget. We welcome the proposed continued earmarking by the Executive of £332·5 million for agriculture, agrienvironment, fisheries and rural development for each year of the Budget period. We are, however, disappointed that there continues to be no inflationary increase in the funding, especially in light of the challenges that farmers are currently facing. The general DEL resource allocations to DAERA over the next three years are among the worst for all the Departments, giving DAERA a very constrained financial position.

Bovine TB compensation, which is a statutory requirement, is placing significant pressure on DAERA's budget and must be prioritised for in-year funding. The £5 million that the Executive have continued to earmark per annum for Lough Neagh is welcome, but given the scale of the crisis that we are facing, more investment is required to turn the situation around and improve our environment, tackle climate change and strengthen environmental protections.

There is no proposed increase to DAERA's earmarked allocations of £7·9 million, £13·7 million, £10·9 million and £4 million for the just transition fund for agriculture. That remains disappointing at a time when we need to increase our support for the agri-food sector.

Mr McGuigan (The Chairperson of the Committee for Health): I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Health Committee on the Finance Committee's report on the draft Budget. I thank the Committee for Finance for undertaking the work to provide a collective view of the Committees' positions on the draft Budget.

The Health Committee did not come to a position on the draft Budget. The Committee was briefed by the Department's interim director of finance and senior officials on 19 February on the 2026-29 multi-year Budget, and they advised that the proposed Budget represents a disappointing outcome for Health. The briefing paper provided by the Department outlined that the projected funding shortfall for 2026-27 was £1·08 billion, rising to £1·844 billion in 2028-29. That is part of the Health Committee's problem with scrutinising the Department of Health's budget: the numbers are always changing. In the last couple of weeks, the Minister has mentioned a shortfall of anywhere between £600 million and £800 million, and it is difficult for the Committee to take a position on a constantly changing shortfall figure.

The Committee is, of course, concerned about the budget that has been provided to the Minister. Every week, we hear about the problems that all areas of our health service face, such as a lack of community services, ambulance waits, waiting lists and the delivery of mental health services, and I could go on for the rest of the debate on some of the deficits faced by our health service. However, the Committee is clear that we have a very committed, highly-skilled workforce, and we thank them all for the work that they do. They go above and beyond in caring for patients and their families. The workforce will be key in driving change in the system.

The Committee's role is to scrutinise the budget and the Department's work, and the Minister likes to tell the Committee that it should advise and assist him in his role. Yet, when it does that, the Minister’s standard answer is that there is not enough money. The Committee does assist and advise him. For example, the Committee spent a considerable amount of time over a number of months doing an inquiry into access to palliative care. The Committee produced 27 recommendations, which would not only improve outcomes for those with terminal illnesses who require end-of-life care but would also move care from expensive hospital settings to much more efficient community settings and free up resources in our hospitals and patient flow. The Committee's view was that not only would we get better outcomes but much more efficient spending of the Department of Health's budget. Despite the Department accepting all but one of our recommendations, we were told last week that there are no resources or timelines for introducing some of the
Committee's recommendations that would undoubtedly improve care for those who are most in need.

The Health Minister has asked the Committee to advise and assist, and we have played our part. Therefore, we believe that he must play his part and prioritise certain areas, particularly palliative care, in the incoming budgetary period.

Mrs Dodds: It is acknowledged across the Chamber that there are very difficult decisions in any forthcoming Budget process, and there are responsibilities to be borne by politicians in the Assembly as well as by our national Government at Westminster. We all agree, and I have heard it across the Chamber during the debate, that we still suffer from underfunding. I hope that, in the middle of the chaos that is the current Labour Party, there will be an understanding of the needs of Northern Ireland, and that there will be room for this part of the Kingdom in whatever the Prime Minister's reset is going to look like.

It has become clear that the Budget that has been produced by the Sinn Féin Finance Minister is not supported by any party in the Chamber. If any Sinn Féin Members want to tell me different, I will be happy to give them time to do so. The weight of the cuts in the Budget will be borne by Health, Education and Communities, impacting on the care of the most vulnerable, the education of the young, and the building of houses for families.

A Budget process must go alongside fair and sensible decision-making. Today, I have heard from the opposite side of the Chamber much talk about being up for taking tough decisions, yet they got themselves incredibly spooked by the SDLP when it came to the deferral of hospital car parking charges. If we cannot take tough decisions on £7 million — Sinn Féin and the SDLP were spooked by that — I am not sure how we will take other tough decisions, particularly in light of the fact that Sinn Féin continues to introduce private Members' Bills that are uncosted and for which there is no identifiable funding. I would like to hear from the Finance Minister on whether he believes that that is a sensible way forward.

The Health budget continues to take over half of the total block grant for Northern Ireland. I am glad that the Health Minister has decided to prioritise staff pay this year; that is right and appropriate. I was also glad to hear the permanent secretary in the Department say that prioritisation in the Health budget must include the key objectives of reform and delivery. There is so much to be done. Our cancer waiting lists are by far the worst in the United Kingdom. Only 5% of women see a consultant within the 14-day target from when they discover a suspicious lump. That is an untenable position for Northern Ireland, and we are failing women very badly. I use this debate to say that we need an emergency action plan for cancer patients. We can, and must, do better.

I am glad of the work that has been done on waiting list reductions, but we do not know, for example, what happens to patients who have had scopes for a particular condition, which is the area in which there has been the greatest reduction. We do not know what happens to them because Northern Ireland does not have a pathway that takes patients from their referral to treatment that gives us data on how many of them went on to receive further treatment or simply joined another waiting list. That is an important point, because, if we are to spend money appropriately and effectively, we must have the data to help us do that. We also have the waiting list reduction scheme, which the Minister introduced at the cost of £10 million. Only £4·49 million of that was spent. The remainder was reallocated, but I suggest that, in future, the Minister looks at his priorities in that regard.

I will finish on two points around the neighbourhood model. When the Minister is demanding that 2% of the trusts' budget is taken to implement his neighbourhood model, which will deliver care to people in their own communities, he needs to reassure the House that it will not be a rehash of things that they have already done, that there will be a proper auditing process of the 2% —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Mrs Dodds: — and that we will see real change. Thank you.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Diane.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): I rise to contribute to the debate on the Finance Committee's report as Chair of the Committee for Communities.

At the outset, I acknowledge the work of the Committee for Finance in producing its report, as well as the important assessment that has been provided by the Fiscal Council. Both reports are useful in setting out the scale of the financial challenge that is facing the Executive.

The Committee for Communities has engaged constructively with the process that led to the Finance Committee's report. On 12 March, we submitted a detailed response informed by the Department's written and oral briefings. The remarks that I will make today reflect the Committee's agreed position.

Before turning to Communities-specific issues, I will acknowledge the broader context. The draft Budget has been framed in an exceptionally constrained fiscal environment that affects every Department. As we stated in our response, we agree with the position established across the Executive that the North continues to be underfunded relative to objective need. The Fiscal Council has confirmed that the Barnett formula is not fit to address our infrastructure deficits or accumulated social need and that the 124% so-called needs-based factor does not adequately capture the true scale of what is required here. We are frequently told by the Treasury that we must enact structural reform. However, meaningful reform requires upfront investment — investment that we are continually denied. The British Government must recognise that chronic underfunding is incompatible with sustainable public service delivery. The Committee supports ongoing and intensified engagement with Westminster to secure a funding settlement that genuinely reflects the needs of our people and public services. That is the responsibility of all parties and the entire Executive.

The Committee also notes that the draft Budget has not been agreed by the Executive. We are well into the 2026-27 financial year. Departments are operating under a Vote on Account, and contingency planning envelopes have been issued by the Department of Finance permanent secretary. That is not a sustainable position, and I urge Executive parties to redouble efforts to agree a multi-year Budget as a matter of urgency. All parties agree that multi-year budgeting is essential for the strategic planning, transformation and service reform that the Department for Communities and its arm's-length bodies so urgently require.

I turn to the substance of the Communities allocation. Officials informed the Committee that, even on a standstill basis, the Department faces an inescapable resource pressure of approximately £40 million in 2026-27. Of the £764 million proposed allocation, the vast majority is pre-committed to staff costs, statutory obligations and contractual commitments, leaving minimal discretionary spend. Our Committee's response set out in detail where the pressures fall. Programmes across homelessness interventions and Supporting People, employment support, culture, arts and heritage, the voluntary and community sector and urban regeneration are all under intense pressure. Benefit delivery is a particular concern. The Department currently has capacity to provide only 20% to 30% of required into-work support. At a time when so-called economic inactivity remains a major challenge, that seems to the Committee to be an area where investment could deliver wider social and economic benefit.

On capital, officials have told our Committee that the proposed allocation does not meet the Department's inescapable requirements, with a shortfall of £45·5 million in 2026-27. Social housing remains a critical pressure. The Committee is clear that social housing must be treated as a top priority, but delivery is contingent upon factors beyond the Communities remit, including water and waste water infrastructure. That underscores the need for genuine cross-departmental coordination at Executive level, and we have heard recently from the new permanent secretary that that continues to take place between the Communities and Infrastructure Departments in relation to waste water connections.

One of the Committee's central messages is that there are areas within the Communities remit where targeted investment would generate measurable returns, whether through direct savings to the block grant, reduced demand on other public services or improved economic participation. An invest-to-save approach in those areas is not merely desirable but necessary. The Committee will continue to scrutinise how the Department allocates and manages its own budget within whatever settlement is ultimately agreed, and we will hold the Department to account on the cumulative impact of spending decisions on the most vulnerable in our society. The Executive must now come together, agree a Budget and make the strategic choices that the scale of this challenge demands. The Committee for Communities stands ready to play its part in that process.

Mr Martin (The Chairperson of the Committee for Infrastructure): I will make some short comments as Committee Chair and then some comments as DUP lead on infrastructure.

As we have already heard today, the Committee for Finance has undertaken the role of coordinating the responses from the Assembly's Committees. At its meeting on 21 January, the Committee noted the Committee for Finance's correspondence in the context of the draft Budget documents that had been published by the Department of Finance. Given that the draft Budget had not yet been subject to agreement by the Executive, the Committee agreed to seek written evidence from the Department for Infrastructure, Northern Ireland Water, Translink and Waterways Ireland in the first instance. That approach was agreed on the basis that the amounts that were proposed in the draft Budget may be subject to significant changes after consideration by the Executive. Therefore, the Committee considered that it would be beneficial to receive each organisation's initial assessments.

For the Department for Infrastructure, as a high-capital-spending Department, the multi-year Budget presents a step forward when it comes to the security of capital resources to enable it to deliver key projects. In responding to the Committee's request for written evidence, the Department highlighted that difficult decisions would be required in prioritising services and capital schemes. Until the Budget is delivered, the Minister is unable to take decisions on prioritising those areas of spend.

In its response to the Committee, Northern Ireland Water stated that it had neither been provided with a confirmed budget allocation nor been advised of any proposed funding levels. The Committee noted that, for the 2025-26 financial year, Translink was projecting an operating loss of £27 million, which, it cites, is due to insufficient funding to meet its public service obligation and the increased demand for concessionary fares. Over recent years, those operating losses have been managed by Translink's cash reserves. However, those reserves have steadily reduced from £16 million in 2022 to current levels of around £10 million.

As we know, the Assembly previously approved an approximately 45% allocation of departmental resources and capital requirements through the Supply resolution to permit the continued use of resources through the first few months of this year.

I take the opportunity to express our thanks to the Committee for Finance, its Chair and its Deputy Chair, who is in front of me, for leading on the issue. I am sure that I speak for all members of the Committee for Infrastructure in reaffirming our commitment to working collaboratively with the Department and arm's-length bodies.

I will make a few brief comments as my party's lead on infrastructure. In his opening statement, the leader of the Opposition mentioned the fiscal challenges that are contained in the council's report, and set out some of the significant budgetary pressures. I suppose that, as Chair of the Infrastructure Committee and in my capacity as party lead, my concern is about efficiency and how money is used. Every Member in the Chamber will know that budget allocations are made and, if those budget allocations do not rise when a larger pot is available, Ministers just have to be more efficient with the resources that they actually get. On 12 January, the Finance Minister mentioned that he had allocated an additional £60 million to Infrastructure for a range of projects at that time, towards the end of the financial year. My concern is that, in a high-spending Department, all money is used effectively and efficiently. My further concern is that some of the things that are being done are, perhaps, short-term fixes. I could wax lyrical about potholes. However, as has already been reflected in the debate, what we need to try to do is to create permanent repairs to some of those issues.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up. Thank you, Peter.

Dr Aiken: The multi-year Budget, by any reasonable assessment, is highly likely to be worth over £60 billion over the next three years, and it would set a financial framework and direction of travel around which the Northern Ireland Executive could coalesce. That figure can be derived from the allocations of the multi-year settlement and an informed guess about inflation pressures and future annual Budget Barnett consequentials. The money has already been allocated by the Chancellor and been baked in, as it has for the other devolved regions. Regardless of whether we agree the Budget, the overall funding envelope, short of our using our revenue-raising powers, is now set. Indeed, in the words of the Fiscal Council:

It goes on to say, however:

With multi-year Budgets, we have been given an opportunity that others may not have. It is obvious that many pressures remain in health and education and in fixing our collapsing infrastructure, and that £60 billion will not cover everything. We also know, because the report has been leaked, that the Department of Finance's approach of asking HM Treasury to do an open-book exercise — why? — in the rather bizarre belief that it would think that we were being underfunded and funded below need was, to say the least, naive. That the Treasury could find up to —.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): Will the Member give way?

Dr Aiken: Certainly, Minister.

Mr O'Dowd: This may be a moment of enlightenment for the Member: that is an Executive approach, and he has, I believe, a party Member on the Executive.

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

Dr Aiken: Thank you very much indeed. I thank the Minister for his comments.

That the Treasury could find up to £3·5 billion in savings is an overstatement. However, the Fiscal Council's analysis that we have a civil servant equivalent of 1·88 to 1 compared with a similarly large English or Welsh authority should set off huge alarm bells. The fact that we have spent over £200 million on infrastructure projects and not laid one metre of tarmac is a scandal. "Blame the Brits" seems to be the only default option, but that is a very hollow argument. If our "1·88 Civil Service" delivered anything other than inefficiency, we could have had an argument to challenge the Treasury on level of need. Quite frankly, given those circumstances, who can say that we can? In the Fiscal Council's report, I am quoted as saying:

It also says that I noted:

The multi-year Budget is not a panacea for gross mismanagement, inefficiency and abysmally poor policy decisions or even implementation. An appropriate response by an Executive who were functional would be to pass the Budget while the moneys are there, set the direction of travel and revisit it post May next year. The acceptance of the Budget would allow the resource, capital, financial transactions capital (FTC), reinvestment and reform initiative (RRI) and the other provisions envelope to be accessed, not 45% of last year's or the starting position of the 2025-26 Budget by July and 95% by the end of the year; and not the much larger figure in the draft three-year Budget.

Just for clarity, those restrictions are caused not by the big, bad Brits in Whitehall but by our own legislation. The £60 billion is there. We are just not allowed to spend it because of our devolved legislative powers: we have not taken the legal responsibility of actually passing the Budget. That combination of political and budgetary naivety is never, ever a good way to look at how we do business. Equally, the belief that failing to bring a Budget before the Executive so that it can be debated here in the Assembly, as opposed to the Finance Committee scrutinising a draft Budget, is in some way politically advantageous in the lead-up to the Assembly election in 2027, or earlier, does a huge disservice to the people of Northern Ireland.

Unfortunately, nothing of what I say today will sway the DUP to allow the Budget to proceed or Sinn Féin to act in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland. We could then start to take an exceptionally hard look at the inefficiencies, waste and gross mismanagement in our public services. However, the Assembly now has it on record that we cannot keep on doing what we have been doing. We cannot rely on bailout after bailout after bailout to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland. Getting a three-year Budget on to the Executive table would be a great start. Getting it passed here in the Assembly would be even better.

Mrs Guy: I will focus my remarks on education. I start by acknowledging how tough the financial circumstances are in our education system right now.

I am sure that Members see the reality when they visit schools in their constituency. It is obvious from the physical state of some of our schools, where roofs are falling in, water is flooding classrooms and mould is growing on walls. It is obvious from the lack of support that our teachers and staff receive to meet the needs of children. It is obvious from the huge debts in which many schools find themselves.

Last week, while on a number of school visits, I had genuine well-being concerns about the school leaders who are trying to operate in the most difficult circumstances imaginable. They are faced with huge crises as they try to do their best for the children coming to school every day. The pressure feels unbearable, because the support for school leaders is simply not there. That makes them believe not that the system is about to collapse but that it has already collapsed.

All our public services, including our education system, need adequate funding, but, with that acknowledgement, a number of truths need to be pointed out. First, the constant collapse of this place has harmed our education system, and that is blatantly obvious. Major structural reforms are needed in education but have not been possible because other parties continue to place their politics above the people of Northern Ireland.

Secondly, the independent review of education report stated:

There is no doubt that huge inefficiencies and duplication of spending undermine the Department. Those issues have not been addressed in years of DUP leadership.

More than that, the current Minister of Education calls out budget pressures while, at the same time, authorises spending significant sums of money on events, trips to Florida, phone pouches and a vast array of consultants. We continue to scrutinise projects such as the Strule campus, which has an overspend of more than £220 million and was defined explicitly in the independent review of education as not representing value for money. That contradiction is hard to take for education professionals who find themselves in crisis.

Thirdly, the pressures in education are not new. They are deeply embedded and have been developing for years, if not decades. Those pressures are rightly recognised in the independent review of education. They include the fact that our school estate is simply too big right now, with duplication built into the system, which results in, for example, further education colleges competing directly with schools for pupils, and the fact that vast bureaucracy has been protected in our system rather than be stripped back. For example, we have numerous management authorities instead of a single one.

Finally, the real frustration for me is the procurement system, which leads to rip-off costs for our schools.

The core points that I have outlined were reflected in the independent review of education when it was published back in 2023, but, to date, we have not seen any meaningful reform. In February, the Minister of Education at least finally acknowledged, in his five-year budget strategy, that there are major structural issues, but it is now late in an already shortened mandate. For example, the opportunity to establish a planning commission to analyse our school estate could have been done already.

I do not pretend that achieving those reforms will be easy, but Ministers are paid to make difficult decisions, not easy ones. I agree with the Minister's point in his budget strategy that classrooms should be protected. We should be making decisions in the best interests of children and young people, and that has not always happened to date. Too often, the current system favours sectors, and those sectors have been protected.

I hope that we can get to a point at which a fair multi-year Budget can be agreed. We are already hearing about the uncertainty that is being caused by not having an agreed Budget in place. School leaders are getting in touch with me, concerned that funding for particular programmes will disappear. Vital organisations such as TinyLife are left not knowing whether funding will be in place.

I hope that greater cross-departmental work can be done to make the Budget go further and that people, especially children and young people, are placed at the centre when it comes to how the Budget is spent.

Mr Sheehan: This debate takes place in the context of years of chronic underfunding by successive British Governments. That is the starting point for any honest discussion about the Budget. The reality is that public services here are being asked to do more with less, while demand, inflation and pay pressures continue to rise. The Finance Minister made clear that the additional funding that Westminster announced falls far short of what is needed. The Fiscal Council report lays bare the pressures facing Departments. Against that backdrop, the Finance Minister has sought to do two important things: first, to protect public services as well as possible within an extremely constrained financial envelope, and, secondly, to finally move away from the chaos and short-termism of annual budgeting by putting forward a multi-year Budget that gives Departments the ability to plan strategically over a longer period. That is vital because workforce planning, public-sector transformation and big infrastructure projects cannot be delivered effectively on the basis of one-year firefighting exercises.

Of course, the money available in the Budget is insufficient. Nobody is pretending otherwise. We continue to argue for greater fiscal powers and a fair funding model, because the current system is just not sustainable. However, while public services are under immense pressure, there are also questions to be asked about political priorities and waste. Frankly, the DUP needs to take a look at itself in that regard.

Let us look at the DUP's record, particularly in the Department of Education, where it has been in charge for a decade now. In a number of reports, the Audit Office has found that, despite hundreds of millions of pounds being spent on SEN provision, neither the Department nor the Education Authority could demonstrate value for money. Hundreds of millions have been spent, but there is no evidence that the DUP is delivering. At the same time, we see hundreds of thousands being spent on a phone pouch gimmick and millions being poured into a regressive and harmful reform agenda that was lifted straight from the failed experiment carried out by Michael Gove in England. At a time when the independent review of education has called for simplification and a move towards a single management authority, the DUP wants to go in the opposite direction with more duplication. Another management body, another layer of bureaucracy: how many more millions will that cost? We know that the initial costing is £1·2 million to set it up, with recurrent funding of over £1·2 million every year thereafter. We have school buildings with roofs at risk of collapse and classrooms that are not fit for purpose, and we are told that there is no way to prioritise fixing them, yet, somehow, there is money for a state-of-the-art pitch in a school that is already awash with sporting facilities. Let us not forget that we give taxi operators £83 per mile to bring children to school. Yes, there are difficult choices in the Budget, but DUP representatives stand in the Chamber and say, without a hint of irony, that departmental budgets should be used efficiently and effectively.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member opposite for giving way to me, as he always does. As he knows, I am no longer on the Education Committee, but I chair the Infrastructure Committee. I quoted a figure of £153 million, which has been spent on the A5. The Infrastructure Minister, who is a member of his party, is not seeking a way forward but supporting climate change targets. Does he accept that £153 million has been spent on that road, but no tarmac has been laid?

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

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

I thank the Member for that intervention. Of course, the process to build the A5 is ongoing. Court proceedings are under way, and I do not want to say anything to compromise those court proceedings in any way. However, the Minister has assured the House on any number of occasions that she is confident that the A5 will be built. If I am to believe anyone, I will believe the Minister on that.

Some, including the Member's colleagues, have supported the diversion of billions of pounds into greater militarisation. Many of them have also been cheerleaders for the illegal attacks by the US and Israel on Iran. They then displayed their brass necks when they stood in the Chamber and expressed concern about the increases in fuel prices. I wonder whether there was any causal connection between the illegal war against Iran and the increase in petrol prices. Funnily enough, the Iranians told everyone beforehand what they would do if they were attacked. They said that they would block the Strait of Hormuz, which would affect the global economy, and they did just that. Keep cheerleading the illegal wars.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Mr Sheehan: Keep cheerleading the supply of munitions to the Israelis to bomb children in Gaza.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up. Thank you, Pat.

Mr Kingston: I rise to speak as a DUP member of the Finance Committee. The DUP has led the fight for increased funding from the Treasury at Westminster for public services in Northern Ireland to reflect our true level of need. We continue to campaign to increase that, above the current level of 124% pro rata compared with England, to the 128% that was recommended in Professor Gerald Holtham's review last year. There is, of course, unanimous support across the Assembly for increased funding from HM Treasury. Our DUP MPs are leading that cause at Westminster, where Sinn Féin MPs do not even take their seats.

While that campaign continues, it is extremely challenging for our Executive to live within their existing Budget. As a result, we have before us a draft annual Budget and multi-year Budget that are not agreed by the Executive, nor indeed by any Minister in the Executive — perhaps with the exception of the Finance Minister, but he can confirm that. The financial reality, however, means that the Executive have responsibility for managing our current actual funding envelope. Some parties — we have heard from them today — have a one-point action plan of "Blame the Brits". However, the Executive must do all that they can, first, to bring in additional government funding through special initiatives and, secondly, to promote efficiency and the transformation of our public services. Sinn Féin's Jemma Dolan said earlier that local fundraising through the rates cannot meet the funding gap, which is true, but that does not mean that we should not do all that we can to grow our economy, increase our rates base and, of course, increase household income and spending power. It was the DUP that championed the city and growth deal funding for Northern Ireland and got that included in the confidence-and-supply agreement with the then Government in 2017. That has provided £1·3 billion for four deals that now cover all of Northern Ireland.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for giving way. I am not on the Finance Committee, but I know that he is. In his contribution earlier, the Member for West Belfast mentioned the diversion of funds from welfare spending to defence. Will the Member confirm whether the Northern Ireland Executive have a defence budget, because I am not aware of one?

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

Mr Kingston: That is a timely intervention. I wanted to go on to say that the strategic defence review in 2025 highlighted that UK defence spending will increase to 2·5% of GDP by 2027, with the aim of reaching 3% in the next Parliament. Countries across Europe have recognised that need. The parties here that want to stick their heads in the sand and ignore the threat from Russia and elsewhere are failing in the fundamental responsibility of government, which is to protect its citizens from real and present dangers. The Republic of Ireland is Europe's biggest outlier in that regard. The defence review resulted in a £50 million defence growth deal for Northern Ireland, supporting defence tech start-ups and small businesses, creating highly skilled jobs; growing Northern Ireland's aerospace, defence and security sector, which employs thousands of our people; and strengthening UK national security as well as defending people in Ukraine and other places that are under hostile attack.

Among other initiatives, the Communities Minister has highlighted the potential, building on the principles of the 2015 Fresh Start Agreement, for a portion of savings from tackling benefit fraud and error to be retained for the funding of public services in Northern Ireland. That represents a real opportunity to increase funding for public services. I would welcome an update from the Finance Minister, when he responds, on how that is progressing, or not, at the Executive table and in talks with the UK Government.

There are also opportunities for the greater use of financial transactions capital, which is now provided on a net basis, meaning that there is no longer a requirement to make repayments to Treasury.

I am interested in particular in hearing from the Finance Minister about efficiency savings across the Executive. I do not doubt that it is difficult to manage a four-party Executive Budget; it has not currently been agreed for even one year, let alone three or four years. What targets are being set to make efficiency savings, and what progress is being made and annually measured? The transformation fund and the delivery unit in TEO are positive initiatives, but the Finance Minister should be the champion for efficiency savings and should push all Ministers to make them.

I would welcome an update from the Minister on those matters.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Danny, I have applied a grace period of five minutes to allow you an opportunity to speak, but, if you take any interventions, I cannot give you any extra time. It is up to you.

Mr Donnelly: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. I speak today as Alliance health spokesperson.

There is almost broad agreement across the Chamber about the need for a fairer financial settlement from the UK Government. Northern Ireland continues to be underfunded according to objective need, which places enormous pressure on public services, especially health. However, we also need to be honest with ourselves: over many years, we have continued to put increasing amounts of money into health — it now accounts for over half of the Executive's overall Budget — but outcomes have not improved at the pace that patients and staff deserve. We have heard warnings that, unless the service is transformed, that proportion is set to increase to 75% by 2050. Something fundamental needs to change, and we need a three-year Budget. Mike Farrar, the permanent secretary, has said that another one-year budget would make it almost impossible to deliver the necessary savings and that it would jeopardise the vision to transform Northern Ireland's healthcare system. The Fiscal Council is right to warn that the current position is not sustainable without either new recurring funding or significant reform. If we do not strategically review departmental expenditure and prioritise sustainability, we will simply continue to lurch from one financial crisis to another.

Last week at the Health Committee, the permanent secretary said that Northern Ireland could be in a prime position to successfully deliver a neighbourhood care model because of the size of our health system. That should be seen as an opportunity. It was also confirmed at Committee in December that efficiency work was only beginning. Frankly, that should have happened much sooner; it should not have taken the arrival of a new permanent secretary to kick-start serious work on efficiency and sustainability. The Minister should have been driving that agenda long ago, but real change requires action. That is why transformation cannot remain just another slogan. "Shift left" has to mean more than just words; it has to mean real investment that reaches the front line of community care. That means properly supporting GPs, community pharmacy, mental health services, social care and early intervention services. We also need urgency around reform. When we see 12-hour A&E waits increasing by 14% in the past year and when we are repeatedly warned that that has a direct impact on excess deaths, with over 1,000 a year being associated with 12-hour waits in A&Es in Northern Ireland, it is clear that difficult decisions need to be made. Had they not been avoided for so long, we could deliver meaningful change.

We cannot continue to ask front-line staff to carry the burden of a system that, everyone knows, is not working. Alliance welcomes the Minister's previous commitments to prioritise healthcare staff pay from the beginning of the financial year, because staff deserve certainty and fairness after years of pressure and instability. However, those commitments need to be delivered on. Carers also deserve the real living wage, as was promised. It should go without saying that there is no health service without healthcare workers. Health workers have carried the system through some of its most difficult years. They deserve more than just warm words; they deserve proper support, fair pay and a health service that is sustainable for the future.

There are also opportunities for invest to save. One example is the expansion of the thrombectomy service from a nine-to-five service to a 24/7 service, which would end the inequality in the delivery of a treatment that saves lives and prevents disabilities following a stroke at a saving of £47,000 per patient treated. That cost-effective service should be invested in.

The Budget must be about more than simply managing crisis after crisis. It must be about reforming how services are delivered and focusing on creating a sustainable health service, not just cutting costs to meet a budget target until it is the next Minister's problem. That means that all parties need to step up and get behind the genuine transformation of the health service.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Danny. Much appreciated.

I call the Minister of Finance to respond to the debate. Minister, you have 20 minutes.

Mr O'Dowd: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I welcome the opportunity to respond to the motion and to engage with the detailed scrutiny undertaken by the Committee for Finance as well as the independent analysis provided by the Fiscal Council. Both reports offer a clear and, at times, stark assessment of the financial position facing our public services over the coming Budget period.

It is essential that the debate begins with honesty about the context in which the draft Budget was prepared. I have been clear that my proposals in the draft Budget have been developed against an exceptionally constrained financial position and do not provide the level of funding that I would wish to see directed towards public services. Public services here have experienced spending decisions taken by successive British Governments that have imposed austerity and prolonged fiscal restraint, resulting in underinvestment and rising demand.

The cost-of-living crisis is not some abstract slogan or media headline; it is a daily experience for many families who see their earnings being stretched to breaking point. That is why the British Government must change course. They must properly fund public services and support workers and families against the rising tide of the cost of living. If the election results in England, Scotland and Wales have told us anything over the past number of days, it is that it is not only us blaming the Brits; the Brits are fed up with it as well. There needs to be a change of direction from the Government. The days of austerity must come to an end, and there must be proper investment in public finances that allows public services to deliver the services that people need and investment in the economy.

People here pay their fair share of taxes to London. They do not get a fair return. While the most recent spending review provided the Executive with an opportunity to set their first multi-year Budget in a decade, the funding that it provided falls short of the level of need in our society. Independent analysis considered by the Committee reinforces what I have consistently said: the pressures that we face are the result of long-standing structural underfunding. The funding settlement does not adequately reflect patterns of ill health, economic inactivity or the real cost of delivering services. Real terms erosion is closely linked to the Government's tax and spending decisions.

I take issue with Mr Aiken's analysis of the open-book review. The Treasury did not find £3·5 billion of efficiencies; it found £3·5 billion of extra taxes for the people here to pay. If Mr Aiken is now advocating that the people whom he represents should pay £3·5 billion extra in taxes, he should say that clearly but should not hide behind the open-book review. The open-book review did not find that, and neither did the authors of the report claim to find that.

Continued underinvestment by the Government means that both resource and capital DEL remain highly constrained. While the interim fiscal framework has prevented funding from falling below the 124% level of need, evidence has shown that we are not funded fairly or favourably when compared with Wales and Scotland. Analysis shows that Wales is funded some eight percentage points above its estimated level of need of 115% and that Scotland is funded some 20 percentage points above its estimated level of need of 105%. Where is the fairness in that?

The challenge that we face is not lack of ambition or commitment by those who deliver public services. The answer is not to tax hard-working families and small and medium-sized businesses more. We have a funding framework that does not reflect reality. That is why I continue to make the case to the Government that we need to be fairly funded so that we can deliver the services that workers and families here rightly expect and deserve.

I agree with the Committee and the Fiscal Council that the publication of a multi-year Budget is a necessary and important step forward. It enables Departments to move beyond short-term supports, allows for more responsible workforce planning, provides greater certainty for capital investment and creates better conditions for transformation. However, the evidence also makes it clear that multi-year budgeting alone does not resolve deep-rooted fiscal challenges. The underlying underfunding must be addressed. Achieving a sustainable multi-year Budget requires both collective responsibility in the Executive and continued engagement with London to press for a fairer funding settlement that reflects need and the real cost of delivering public services and supporting the economy.

In recent years, pressures have been managed through exceptional and short-term Treasury interventions. They have not addressed the underlying causes of financial instability. The repayment of the £400 million reserve claim over the coming years adds further pressures, particularly in 2026-27, the most challenging year of the Budget period. Analysis by the Committee made it clear that recurring overspends increasingly reflect the gap between service expectations and available funding rather than simple failures of financial control. Relying indefinitely on emergency support undermines financial discipline, weakens long-term planning and erodes public confidence. That is why fair and sustainable funding is essential. Without a settlement that reflects need and the real cost of delivering public services it is not possible to restore credibility, realism and control to our public finances.

Evidence presented to the Committee consistently indicates that public services in their current form are not sustainable within existing resources. The need for transformation is central to my draft Budget proposals. I fully recognise the scale of the challenge and pressures that all Departments and Ministers face. There remains a significant, unsustainable gap between our ambition and the resources at our disposal. Addressing that disparity so that we can provide sustainable services into the future will require adequate funding from London for public services as well as the substantive reform and meaningful transformation of how we design and deliver public services. That must include a relentless focus on driving efficiencies, responsibly generating additional income in a fair and equitable way and being open to new and innovative approaches to delivering outcomes.

My response to Mr Kingston's point about what I am doing to drive efficiencies in the Executive is that, in the draft Budget, I gave a sense of direction to my Executive colleagues on how they can support efficiencies in their Departments and help themselves. My draft Budget states that any Department raising additional finance will be allowed to keep it up to the value of £20 million. I said that Departments that sell off unneeded buildings and other capital assets can keep the proceeds of that up to £20 million. However, there is a responsibility on every Minister to understand their budget and how their budget and public services are being delivered. Where they see inefficiencies, they should drive them out of the system, not only in their core Department but in their arm's-length bodies.

Transformation will, at its core, mean changing how we work so that services become more effective, more resilient and more sustainable. That means designing services around citizens, not organisational structures; cutting duplication and unnecessary complexity; planning our workforce better so that skills are used where they add most value; using data wisely to guide decisions and support early action; focusing on prevention, not just managing demand; and making sure that every pound that we spend delivers the greatest possible impact. That kind of reform is not optional; it is good government.

The Executive recognise the need for transformational change across many public services and the need to fund that transformational journey. As demand has grown, particularly among the most vulnerable, due to the cost-of-living crisis, so has the cost of delivering the services that our people rightly expect and deserve. Transformation will not remove the need for difficult decisions, nor will it happen overnight, but it is essential if we are to protect public services, support staff and secure best value for public money in the years ahead. Scrutiny has highlighted significant pressures arising from workforce size and pay. Those working in public services deliver vital support in demanding circumstances, and fair pay and decent conditions are essential to maintaining stable and effective services. The pressures that the Executive face cannot be resolved by unilateral cuts or by asking workers to absorb the cost of underfunding. Long-term solutions require engagement, workforce planning rooted in need and reform of the funding settlement itself.

Rightly, the Committee and others highlight the constraints on capital investment in the absence of an agreed investment strategy. Years of underinvestment have left significant infrastructure deficits across Departments, such as those in transport, water, public buildings and community facilities. Without a clear and agreed strategy, capital investment risks becoming fragmented and reactive rather than aligned to economic recovery, regional balance and climate objectives. Evidence from Statutory Committees highlights the issue that budgets are increasingly dominated by fixed and statutory costs, leaving little flexibility to respond to rising demand.

Committees have raised serious concerns about health services, justice outcomes, infrastructure maintenance and support for vulnerable communities. I will be clear: protecting those most in need and defending public services remains a core priority. The evidence also makes clear, however, that incremental reductions and across-the-board savings have reached their limit.

The draft Budget includes modest revenue-raising measures, including regional rate increases that the Executive have collectively agreed. Those measures contribute to funding public services and should not be dismissed. As the Fiscal Council and others have made clear, however, local revenue alone cannot bridge the scale of the funding gap facing the region. Analysis presented to the Committee has cautioned against overstating the potential of local revenue raising and against making simplistic comparisons with other jurisdictions that fail to reflect differences in wages, tax yield and service responsibilities. Those differences place clear limits on what local revenue can deliver. Revenue-raising decisions must therefore be considered alongside transformation, efficiency and the need for a fairer funding settlement.

No honest discussion of the Budget can ignore the role of decisions taken by successive British Governments. I have pressed and continue to press the Government for fair funding for public services to enable us to provide the services that our citizens need and deserve. The funding settlement applied to this region has failed to keep pace with the levels of need, the legacy of underinvestment and the real cost of delivering public services. The independent analysis before the Committee supports and strengthens the case that I have made repeatedly: current funding arrangements fall short of what is required to support our public services sustainably. We will continue to press for a funding model that is transparent, fair and grounded in need rather than in crisis management.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Minister give way?

Mr O'Dowd: I will in one second.

That engagement, however, must be underpinned by credibility on our part through realistic budgeting, disciplined delivery and Executive leadership.

Mr O'Toole: I thank the Minister for giving way. This is a genuine point of information. You may be coming to it, Minister, but, in case I miss my opportunity to ask, is there a specific timeline? Is there a meeting coming up with the Treasury soon? When can we expect to hear more about live conversations that are taking place on the Budget?

Mr O'Dowd: The Executive shared a paper with the Treasury last week. There was official engagement this morning. There will be further engagement, I hope, throughout this week. I hope to meet the Secretary of State the following week.

The Government have matters of concern of their own at the moment that, I assume, that they are dealing with, but we have been engaging proactively with them. I would like to see the matter resolved as quickly as possible. I agree that we need a multi-year Budget. Others have pushed us to agree a Budget now, but we should not do that. We should continue discussions with the British Government. The time will quickly come, however, when the Executive and Assembly will have to make decisions on a Budget. I would like to see that happen in circumstances of enhanced, increased and proper funding from the British Government. That will not mean that I and other Ministers will not have very difficult decisions to make. We will have such decisions to make, but there is still scope for continued engagement with the Government in the short time ahead.

Once again, I remind those listening that hard-working families and small to medium-sized businesses here pay their fair share of taxes but are not seeing a fair return from London. The reports before us do not offer easy answers, because there are no easy answers. They confirm that the pressures in 2026-27 are severe and that continuing as we have done in the past is not an option: I agree. The task before us is to protect public services, defend fairness, pursue reform with purpose and secure a funding settlement that genuinely reflects need and enables long-term stability. The choices ahead are difficult, but failing to confront them will come at a far greater cost to public services, workers and the people whom we serve.

I therefore welcome the motion, acknowledge the reports that it references and reaffirm my commitment to giving full and due regard to their findings, as we work towards a fairer and more sustainable financial future.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Diane Forsythe, the Deputy Chair of the Finance Committee, to conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech on the motion.

Diane, you have 15 minutes.

Ms Forsythe (The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Finance): Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. First, I thank those who contributed to the debate. The Committee tabled the motion to allow Members, particularly the Chairs of the Statutory Committees, an opportunity to discuss and reflect on the draft Budget for 2026-29/2030. The Committee is grateful to the Minister of Finance for agreeing to respond to the debate today and for his contribution.

The Committee again thanks the Fiscal Council for its assessment of the draft Budget. The council performs a vital function in supporting the Assembly's scrutiny of the draft Budget, and I know that the Finance Committee finds its assessment very useful. It raises issues that the Committee has previously identified. The Committee supports the passing of the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council Bill, which will put the council on a statutory footing.

As the Committee had hoped, the debate has been useful and constructive. The Committee heard Department of Finance officials talk on many occasions about the need for Departments to live within their means and about the fact that there are unlikely to be significant in-year transfers from the Treasury this year.

The Committee notes that the draft Budget has been extremely difficult to scrutinise. The Budget does not currently command the support of the Executive, and, without that support, many Ministers have not engaged with it, meaning that departmental officials have not engaged with the relevant Committees. When officials do not liaise with their Committees on budgetary matters, it is difficult, if not impossible, for the Committees of the Assembly to provide the necessary and important scrutiny that every Budget should receive. In the Finance Committee's view, that is unacceptable. When a Budget, whether for multiple years or one year, is agreed, the Committee expects Departments to do a better job of supporting Committees than they have with this draft Budget.

I will reflect on some of the themes that Members have raised in today's debate and then make further comments as an individual MLA.

The Chair of the Committee opened the debate. There have been common themes — nothing unexpected — throughout: the need for a multi-year Budget; the underlying need for Northern Ireland to receive more funding; and the reflection that some Committees were not able to complete full scrutiny as they had wanted.

Jemma Dolan spoke about the challenges to Northern Ireland's finances and the level of need. Paul Frew, Chair of the Justice Committee, spoke of the real-life impact on the PSNI, prisons and many other services of the cuts that the draft Budget would mean for Justice. Eóin Tennyson echoed concerns about the Justice budget and the same themes.

Robbie Butler, Chair of the AERA Committee, outlined how officials were unable to come to the Committee to give evidence on the draft Budget. He highlighted the role of Committees in supporting their Minister and the fact that the Committees are not able to assist in scrutiny of Budgets if they are not afforded that opportunity. A key message to take from the debate is that the role of Committees is not just to criticise but to support and work with officials to support Ministers in assessing their priorities.

Deirdre Hargey again highlighted the need for enhanced funding. Maurice Bradley spoke about the need for the Department for Communities to have a multi-year budget to give the voluntary and community sector security, and he spoke about the critical outcomes for housing and the anti-poverty strategy if there were to be insufficient allocations to that Department.

Paula Bradshaw, Chair of the Executive Office Committee, highlighted the key Programme for Government objectives that would be at risk under the current proposals, including that of ending violence against women and girls. She rightly highlighted the serious issue of femicide in Northern Ireland. She also commented on the extremely constrained allocations to DAERA.

Philip McGuigan, Chair of the Health Committee, highlighted many pressures across the Health budget, as advised by officials, and emphasised the need for the Health Minister to prioritise. Diane Dodds spoke further about Health, highlighting a number of issues, including, once again, the need to make tough decisions. She highlighted what the issues with hospital parking charges meant in that respect and raised concerns about uncosted Members' Bills in the context of the draft Budget.

Colm Gildernew, Chair of the Communities Committee, highlighted the challenge of economic inactivity in Northern Ireland and the fact that many areas across the Department for Communities' remit require an invest-to-save approach, all of which are at risk under the current budget position.

Peter Martin, Chair of the Infrastructure Committee, highlighted the fact that, in the absence of an agreed Budget, written submissions were returned to his Committee and that Northern Ireland Water had not been advised what that would mean for it, which is concerning. He once again highlighted the need for key priorities.

Steve Aiken noted issues with the open-book exercise. The Minister also commented on that. It is frustrating that the open-book exercise is being discussed in the Chamber when the Finance Committee is yet to receive it or to see it officially and it remains unpublished.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Ms Forsythe: Yes.

Mr O'Toole: Would the Deputy Chair of the Committee that I chair agree — I think that there is a degree of cross-party agreement on this — that there is frustration that the open-book exercise has not been published and that the "Dear Accounting Officer" letter that was sent to permanent secretaries has not been disclosed to the Finance Committee, as is proper? That is a serious concern for the Committee.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Chair of the Committee for his intervention. Yes —.

Mr O'Dowd: Sorry, may I come in on that point quickly?

Ms Forsythe: Yes, Minister.

Mr O'Dowd: I meant to touch on that during my address: apologies. I understand that there is a letter in my office from the Clerk of the Committee requesting those letters. I have agreed to their being issued.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for that. I want to highlight those two points. We do our best as a Finance Committee — we work quite well together — to scrutinise the roles. We would encourage any of that information to be shared with us officially. I understand that the open-book exercise is a joint effort by the Treasury and the Department of Finance and that there is dispute around it, but we would welcome its being shared officially with the Finance Committee, as is appropriate.

Getting back to contributions to the debate, Michelle Guy highlighted some issues around the Education budget and noted how visible the shortcomings are in any school that you might go into in Northern Ireland. Pat Sheehan, predictably, blamed the DUP for failures across many things in Education. He quoted Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) reports on education but ignored its reports referencing failures in infrastructure, such as those on major capital projects and road openings, and other recent reports. Also predictably, he criticised defence spending, which, as my colleagues highlighted, is not devolved to the Northern Ireland block grant. Brian Kingston noted the DUP's leading role on many of the issues. Danny Donnelly noted further issues in health.

I thank the Finance Minister for being here to respond. I agree with a lot of what he said. People in Northern Ireland pay their fair share of taxes, and they deserve the best public services. I welcome the Minister's update on his live engagement on funding with Treasury. We hope to hear more about that soon.

The Committee had some discussion about whether to table the motion, given that the Budget has not been agreed by all. We felt that it was important, given the scrutiny work that took place, for us to table a motion to highlight the themes: the need for a multi-year Budget; the need for Northern Ireland to be funded fairly; the need for improved scrutiny by Committees through different opportunities; and the push for difficult decisions to be made on the basis of priorities.

At one of the Committee's recent sessions, the fact that 77% of the Northern Ireland public spend is via arm's-length bodies was noted. I once again highlight the need for strong governance over that spending.

We cannot simply default to blaming others for our Budget position. As my colleague Diane Dodds said, responsibilities lie at Westminster and in the Assembly. We all have a role to play. The Finance Committee welcomes the debate and commends the motion to the House.

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

Mr Brett: I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): 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. Phillip, please open the debate on the motion.

Mr Brett: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am delighted to move this motion, which recognises the vital role that Belfast City Airport plays in the economic life of our city, the Belfast region and, indeed, the country as a whole, and which commits the House to supporting the delivery of the 2040 master plan. I had the privilege of co-hosting the launch of the master plan for George Best Belfast City Airport here in the Northern Ireland Assembly a number of weeks ago, and today is an opportunity for the House to put on record its support for its ambitious proposals.

Belfast City Airport already plays a vital role in our economy and our country, connecting Northern Ireland to the rest of the world, the United Kingdom and vital hubs throughout the European Union. Some 2·4 million passengers travelled through the airport in 2024. The airport and its operations supported over 12,000 jobs in our city and contributed £800 million to the Northern Ireland economy. While so much has already been achieved, the master plan that was launched this year in this very Building aims to deliver a transformative project for our country, unlock up to £200 million of private investment, create up to 1,100 new jobs in our capital city, welcome up to seven million passengers a year to Belfast and contribute £1·7 billion every single year. The proposals from Belfast City Airport are the single largest private-sector investment proposals on the table in Northern Ireland at present, and, as such, they should command the support of the House. I pay particular tribute to the new rail halt proposal that would make Belfast City Airport the first airport on this island to be served by a direct train connection.

The role of airports throughout Northern Ireland cannot be underestimated. Belfast International Airport, Belfast City Airport and the City of Derry Airport all have a vital role to play in growing our economy and connecting Northern Ireland to the rest of the world, but, unfortunately, to date, they have had to operate under a piecemeal approach from the Department for the Economy, because, yet again, we have failed to deliver an overall aviation strategy. Given all the benefits that our airports bring, it is incumbent on the Government not only to support plans but to deliver the conditions that attract investment. That is why an aviation strategy, including an air route development policy, is so important, and the Department's delay in producing it is hugely concerning.

If you look at the business plan for the Department for the Economy, you see that the target date for the completion of an air connectivity strategy and a route development policy was March 2025. When did the Department belatedly launch a consultation on its proposals? It was in March 2026. In the private sector, a year's delay in producing a strategy or a consultation would not be accepted, and it should not be accepted in the Department for the Economy. The proposals in the aviation strategy are neither new nor groundbreaking, so I do not understand the delay in producing them. We want an air route development fund, but we have already put on the record here the benefit to be seen from that. Two years ago, the Department commissioned and published the York Aviation report, which made it clear that Northern Ireland needed to be more connected to mainland Europe and also needed to focus on our direct routes into North America and, possibly, Canada. The report was produced two years ago, and, to date, we have had no movement. When officials came before the Committee for the Economy a few weeks ago, they made it clear that there would be no route development policy until the final consultation process had been delivered.

I welcome some of the aspects in the consultation document, particularly the Department for the Economy's commitment to undo some of the damage done by the Northern Ireland protocol. In Northern Ireland, air passenger duty and duty-free sales are not possible as a result of the protocol. It is important to recognise the change in position that the Department for the Economy has committed to. Headed by the Minister, it no longer wants the rigorous implementation of the protocol but recognises the economic damage that the protocol is doing to Northern Ireland.

Today, the House has an opportunity to make clear its support for the development of Belfast City Airport. It is equally important to make a commitment that an aviation strategy can no longer be delayed. The Department claimed that it would produce a strategy in 2025: for it to have put together a six-page document one year later and claim progress cannot be accepted. I welcome the fact that the Minister for Infrastructure is here today. She can articulate what role, if any, her Department will have in the planning process when the application is submitted. However, I had hoped that the Minister for the Economy would be here, given the fact that it is the single largest private-sector investment that is on the books in Northern Ireland.

The aviation strategy that was promised one year ago has not even made it onto the books, and that fails not just Belfast City Airport; it fails Belfast International Airport and the City of Derry Airport. We need a strategy that goes right across our airport sector in order to ensure that tourists can get to Northern Ireland and that we are connected to other parts of the world. I trust that Members will support today's motion.

Mr Delargy: I beg to move the following amendment:

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

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

I welcome the ongoing work on the Belfast City Airport master plan and the wider discussion about the future of aviation.

Air travel links are vital, particularly for an island economy. Reliable connections — North and South; east and west — matter. The master plan is an opportunity to strengthen those connections and support employment. It also underlines the need for better access to the airport, including improved public transport and coordinated infrastructure planning. I acknowledge the work of Minister Archibald in that area, particularly through the ongoing consultation on the aviation strategy. We need a long-term approach that recognises the strategic importance of our airports and the role that they play in regional development. That commitment has also been clear in the Minister's engagement on the future of the City of Derry Airport and in the recognition that regional airports are pivotal to balanced growth. The connecting flights between London have opened up opportunities for passengers to avail themselves of 450 connecting flights that go all over the world. The recommencement of the Derry to Dublin service is a hugely positive development for the north-west and, indeed, for people across Ireland.

Support to protect and develop services at City of Derry Airport was led by Sinn Féin Ministers, who intervened to support the airport in a way that has lifted an unfair and unnecessary burden from ordinary ratepayers in Derry to allow for strategic prioritisation. Belfast City Airport also plays a significant role in keeping businesses and people connected. As plans develop, we should be clear about how all three airports interact and make sure that decisions support the wider economy and regional balance. At the same time, any development of this scale must bring local communities with it. People who live near the airport must be heard and taken seriously, and consultation must be meaningful, transparent and continue throughout the process. There is, therefore, a responsibility to engage directly with local people throughout the process and to show clearly how community concerns are being reflected in any plans.

The motion ignores the fact that the delays to the publication of the consultation emanated from Westminster and the British Government. In response to a question for written answer that was submitted on 16 January 2026, the Department clearly stated:

That might not suit the DUP's party political agenda, but it is the reality.

Air connectivity brings tourism with it, and it brings jobs in hospitality and the wider visitor economy. It backs local businesses and events and brings real spend into communities across the North. In 2024, the tourism industry generated £1·8 billion, supporting over 70,000 jobs across our region. We know that long-haul flights have augmented that, with international visitor numbers increasing by 12% since 2023. In 2024, the accommodation sector saw hotel occupancy climb to 74%. The Belfast City Airport master plan can create a positive contribution to our regional economy while ensuring that communities are heard and respected throughout the process. Sinn Féin will continue to press for an aviation sector that develops responsibly and delivers opportunities across the North and across Ireland.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): As the business in the Order Paper is not expected to be disposed of by 6.00 pm, in accordance with Standing Order 10(3), I will allow business to continue until 7.00 pm or until the business is completed, if that is earlier.

I call Peter McReynolds. You have up to five minutes.

Mr McReynolds: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As an MLA for East Belfast and a member of the Infrastructure Committee, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Belfast City Airport master plan, and I welcome the fact that the Infrastructure Minister is here to respond to the debate.

The UK Government encourage all airports to have a master plan. As the previous master plan for Belfast City Airport was published in 2006, it is important that the airport now have an up-to-date document. As the aviation industry continues to evolve and grow, it is necessary for airports to keep up with demand and capacity to allow connectivity across the UK.

The document was part of a robust consultation process. It received 376 formal responses, and 72% of respondents supported the ambition of the draft report. The openness and transparency shown were greatly welcomed before the published master plan statement was launched earlier this year. Throughout the master plan, the will and desire to work with others to achieve the airport's goals were clear, with aims of achieving environmental targets and sustainability goals tied to its overall growth. That will allow Belfast City Airport to stand out as a key part of aviation on the island of Ireland while showing the power of innovation and technological progress.

When it comes to the environment and sustainability, the master plan shows new and forward-thinking ideas, which are welcome. The UK's jet zero strategy will require aviation to think differently about how transport is conducted. This master plan takes the next steps in achieving those targets. The environmental goals are positive, with aspirations to achieve 10% of 2040 energy needs through on-site renewables; reduce site water consumption by 50% by 2035; introduce electric power to aircraft from all stands. It is about seeing sustainability as common sense, rather than a barrier, in the modern day. We know how much aviation contributes to climate change. In that context, steps towards greater sustainability are essential, not a luxury.

As the proposer of the motion acknowledged, the introduction of the first rail halt for an airport on the island of Ireland will also be a game changer for east Belfast, reducing traffic emissions while improving access for passengers. The encouragement of airlines to move to more environmentally friendly and quieter aircraft will also contribute positively by reducing emissions while not impeding biodiversity or creating further noise pollution.

For many years, the airport has played a key function by supporting community groups through its community fund. That funding will increase by £300,000 in the next three years to support schools, charities and community projects. Alongside that, it will create an employment academy, allowing for up to 15% of new jobs to be delivered through apprenticeships.

East Belfast and Northern Ireland as a whole have huge potential for aviation development, and the master plan is just one part of a larger move towards sustainable and environmentally friendly travel. Just last week, Mr Honeyford, my office and I met CATAGEN, which is an east Belfast-based company whose goal is to clean and decarbonise air. It was founded by two men who went to Queen's University Belfast, one of whom had an idea for how to create sustainable and environmentally friendly fuel as part of his PhD. Today, CATAGEN is leading innovation by creating sustainable aviation fuel just down the road from this Building. Furthermore, just last week, I welcomed the announcement of an order placed by AirAsia for 150 aircrafts, valued at around £14 billion, the wings and fuselage for which are made in east Belfast. East Belfast has had, as it will always have, successes and a proud heritage of building ships and planes, and the future of Belfast City Airport can be one part of making Northern Ireland a world leader in aviation and innovation. I look forward to any update from the Minister for Infrastructure today on the aviation strategy and acknowledge a potential future planning application for further and wider consultation on more detailed plans.

Ms D Armstrong: I thank the signatories to the motion for tabling it. The Ulster Unionist Party will support the motion.

I strongly welcome the Belfast City Airport master plan 2040. It is not simply an airport document but a strategic economic opportunity for Northern Ireland on a scale that we cannot afford to ignore. Last year, Belfast City Airport handled almost 2·4 million passengers, over 90% of whom were domestic travellers, so the airport connects Northern Ireland to the rest of the UK. No other airport on this island plays such a central role in sustaining our economic, social and political links with Great Britain, and, critically, the airport already provides international connectivity through major hubs such as London Heathrow and Amsterdam Schiphol, giving our businesses and people access to global destinations.

The reality, however, is that 27% of Northern Ireland passengers still travel through Dublin Airport, largely because they cannot access the European routes that they need from airports here. That is lost revenue, lost jobs and lost opportunity. The master plan directly addresses that gap. Independent forecasting — the same forecasting used by the Department for the Economy — shows demand for Belfast City Airport rising to seven million passengers a year by 2040. Meeting that demand would generate £1·2 billion in gross value added (GVA) annually for Belfast and £1·7 billion in GVA across Northern Ireland, support over 23,000 jobs and unlock £200 million of private investment. Those are not notional figures. Rather, they represent real jobs in aviation, hospitality, engineering, tourism, logistics and professional services. They represent apprenticeships, supply chain contracts and new opportunities for young people. They represent a stronger, more competitive Northern Ireland.

The master plan is an infrastructure project that positions Northern Ireland for the future. It proposes a terminal expansion, new airport stands and aprons, surface access improvements, a new on-site hotel and, most significantly, the first direct rail link to any airport on this island. That rail link alone would be transformational. It would reduce congestion, cut emissions and finally give Northern Ireland the kind of integrated transport system that every other modern economy takes for granted. Crucially, all that growth is achievable without any runway extension. The airport remains fully compliant with its 2019 planning agreement, which already contains the most stringent environmental controls of any airport in Northern Ireland.

Although I welcome the Department for the Economy's ongoing aviation policy consultation, it is simply not enough. Belfast City Airport is not interchangeable with other airports. It is our central hub airport: the airport that, as I said, connects us to Heathrow, Schiphol and the wider world.

A one-size-fits-all aviation strategy will not deliver the targeted support that is required to attract more based aircraft, expand early morning and late evening connectivity to major hubs, grow domestic routes by the forecasted 68% and compete with Dublin for European traffic. We need a stand-alone strategy that recognises Belfast City Airport's unique role as the economic engine of our aviation system.

While I welcome the amendment's recognition of sustainable aviation and the importance of connectivity, it removes the core ambition of the master plan. It strips out the commitment to double the workforce, deliver £1·7 billion in economic benefit and expand our route network. It removes the call for Ministers to bring forward concrete proposals to support the master plan. In short, it replaces action with aspiration. Northern Ireland needs both sustainability and growth. We cannot strengthen our tourism sector, attract investment or support our business community if we dilute the very measures that would deliver that growth.

Belfast City Airport is already one of the most important economic assets that we have. With the master plan, it can become the beating heart of a modern, outward-looking Northern Ireland; one that is connected, competitive and confident. This is a moment for ambition and to back private investment, job creation and Northern Ireland's place on the global stage. The UUP supports the motion, rejects the amendment and commits to a stand-alone strategy that ensures that Belfast City Airport reaches its full potential.

Ms McLaughlin: There is no doubt that aviation plays a vital role in our economy, connectivity and the tourism sector. Airports support jobs, attract investment and connect people across these islands. That is why my party welcomes the continued investment in airport infrastructure across Northern Ireland, including the ambitious plans that have been set out in the Belfast City Airport master plan 2040. Indeed, the document and plan are extremely impressive and will certainly transform aviation on the island of Ireland. The investment that has gone into Belfast International Airport in recent years is also very welcome because it is the first point of entry for many visitors to Northern Ireland, and, sometimes, it is not very good. It is improving. That is all that I want to say about that.

Investment in infrastructure and connectivity matters if we are serious about growing the economy and strengthening our tourism offer. I have some concerns, however. Perhaps I could get clarification from the motion's proposer on its language, in particular, which appears to frame environmental targets and climate responsibilities as barriers to economic progress. I do not believe that economic growth and environmental sustainability should be presented in opposition to each other. The amendment also recognises the importance of air connectivity to the island as an economic driver, albeit it softens the delay in delivery of a comprehensive aviation strategy. The delay has gone on far too long. It is unacceptable at this stage. That is why we need a balanced approach. The future of aviation must be sustainable. That means supporting innovation, cleaner technologies and better public transport connectivity. It means recognising the role that aviation plays in supporting our economy and also accepting wider environmental responsibilities and the need to reduce emissions over the long term.

If we are having a conversation about aviation and economic growth, we must also have a conversation about regional balance. Too often, discussions about infrastructure and investment focus entirely on Belfast while other regions are expected to fight for attention. That is why we must also focus on unleashing the potential of the City of Derry Airport and the wider north-west economy. There has been genuine progress in recent years. The Department for the Economy's assuming financial responsibility for the airport, alongside a commitment of £3 million funding support, was an important and positive step forward. We have also seen encouraging announcements on air routes, including confirmation that the Derry to Dublin service will return later this year. That is positive news for tourism, local businesses and regional connectivity. Airports are not simply transport hubs; they are economic enablers. They support tourism, hospitality and improved access to regional economies. They influence investment decisions, and, in places like the north-west, can help tackle long-standing regional neglect and imbalance. For many people in Derry and across the wider north-west, connectivity has, too often, been treated as an afterthought. If we are serious about balanced regional growth, infrastructure investment must reach every part of Northern Ireland.

The aviation and tourism sectors face wider challenges that the Assembly cannot ignore. The introduction of the electronic travel authorisation scheme following Brexit has created significant concerns for tourism across the island. Additional bureaucracy and added costs risk discouraging international visitors who want to travel freely across the island. That is particularly concerning for border areas, like my constituency, that rely heavily on cross-border and all-island connectivity. It is welcome that Ulster University is conducting research on the economic impact of the scheme. That is important work, and I await the report.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Will the Member draw her remarks to a close, please? Thank you.

Ms McLaughlin: The Minister must continue engaging with the British Government on the issue, because the concerns of the tourism industry are growing.

Ms Nicholl: I will start on a point on which we all agree: welcoming ambition. As a former Lord Mayor of Belfast, I know all too well that Belfast is a city that has earned its right to be ambitious. We have grown, rebuilt and proved people wrong in so many ways, so, when an institution like Belfast City Airport produces a master plan to double its workforce, welcome seven million passengers and pursue the first direct rail link of any airport on the island, that is the correct tone, and it is right that we say it. Belfast has so much to offer. Our city — our region — has such extraordinary things going for it, but, sometimes, we lose sight of how important connectivity is. Whether it is families visiting, businesses bringing investment, students coming here for placements or tourists discovering the joys of Northern Ireland, it is important to remember that connections are a necessity. They are the lifeblood of our economy. Living on an island, we understand that better than most, so we welcome the ambition behind the master plan.

It is also important to be honest with the people who are watching. Many Members have mentioned that we have a significant policy gap. The draft aviation strategy is now out for consultation, but it took far too long to get here. Once that consultation closes on 22 May, we need pace. We need the assessment to be done and the final strategy to be published, because the strategy should be setting the direction for the airport industry, not chasing it. I agree very much with the Chair of the Economy Committee on that. Where I differ with him — it is a really important point, in line with what Sinéad has said — is that development of our airport infrastructure must go hand in hand with our commitment to the environment. It is not always a popular thing to say, and, sometimes, people frame it as a choice between green and growth — between economy and environment. Alliance rejects that framing completely, not because we are naive about the tension that can exist, but because it is economically illiterate to pit those things against each other. The businesses that will fill the planes that leave the airport, the tourists who will visit the city and the investors who will consider Northern Ireland will look at how we manage our future, not just our present. Sustainable growth is not a constraint on ambition; it is the condition that we need for growth to last. That is why we tried to amend the motion, but, obviously, that was not accepted for the debate. We do not oppose the master plan. We just ask that it be developed in line with planning rules and statutory regulations.

We are asking that it sits within the wider comprehensive aviation strategy.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Ms Nicholl: Go ahead.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member recognise that a lot of that innovation and so on around more sustainable travel will take place in private industry and it is already looking to do that? We cannot see our airports or our industry restricted at a time when those things are being developed, because, in the long run, when we get to a more sustainable place around air travel in respect of the environment, we will already have fallen behind.

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

Ms Nicholl: I thank the Member for his intervention. Yes, that is why it is disappointing that there is that policy gap and that we do not have the strategy that we should have had. Any development of that size needs to fit within the rules, and I do not think that there should be exceptions just because we want it. Certainly, we need to deliver more. We think that economic development, environmental protection and decarbonisation go hand in hand, not as competing priorities but as a joined-up plan. That requires Economy and Infrastructure to work together, so it is welcome that the Infrastructure Minister is here. There needs to be clarity of purpose. In reply to the Member's point, it requires urgency on the strategy that should have been in place years ago.

We all want Belfast to thrive. We all want greater connectivity. We all want our airport to grow. We want businesses, families and visitors to come here easily and often and with good reason, but we also need to be honest about major transformations to our airport landscape and, indeed, generally. Look at some of the hold-ups in general: we want ambition, but we need to be able to deliver it. That needs to sit within a framework that sets clear goals for our route network. That is so important. Skills are a massive issue for our environmental obligations and for the kind of Northern Ireland that we are trying to build. The strategy has been delayed for far too long, but we are here now, so let us make sure that we do it properly.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call the Minister. You have up to 15 minutes.

Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): That was quick. I thank Members for bringing the motion to the Assembly today and for their contributions as part of the debate. As Minister with responsibility for the transport network, including our gateway ports and airports, I will respond to the motion and will speak on behalf of my colleague Caoimhe Archibald, the Minister for the Economy.

As outlined in my Department's draft transport strategy, I recognise that our airports are a gateway for tourism, business and regional connectivity. I am committed to working alongside Minister Archibald and the Department for the Economy to ensure that our airports have the necessary support and legislative basis to sustainably grow their operations while meeting the climate change commitments and other regulatory requirements. We therefore welcome the ambitious programme for expansion set out by Belfast City Airport in its recently launched master plan 2040. I was delighted to meet airport representatives to look at that and get a feel for what they hope to do.

I believe that, at the outset, it would be useful to set out some context. Belfast City Airport is privately owned by 3i Group plc. It funds operational and facility improvements independently. When an organisation such as an airport plans to significantly develop or redevelop premises, a master plan is a practical way to demonstrate that development has been considered holistically rather than as a series of piecemeal applications. As such, a master plan helps to give a clear, understandable picture of what is proposed and facilitates meaningful stakeholder engagement. It also permits statutory bodies to engage effectively early, helping to facilitate the planning process. Given that the proposed development does not meet the threshold criteria specified in legislation for a regionally significant development, any subsequent planning application will be directed to Belfast City Council in the first instance. However, given my Department's role in relation to the current modified planning agreement and its role as a statutory consultee by virtue of being the roads authority, my Department will have significant input into the process.

Turning first to the modified planning agreement signed in July 2019, the agreement, which aims to control the noise impact of operations on the amenity of surrounding residential areas, contains a number of restrictions and obligations on airport operations. For example, the airport cannot operate more than 48,000 air traffic movements in any 12-month period. It is restricted to operating hours of 6:30 am to 9:30 pm, with delayed aircraft allowed to operate later only if there are exceptional circumstances. Many of those restrictions have been in place since the late 1990s, when the first planning agreement was signed. The latest modified planning agreement introduced a noise control contour that is in place during the summer months, and it means that aircraft cannot create an average daytime noise level above a set limit over a large area. Airport operations during the summer months are limited by that noise control contour. The area exposed to 57 decibels (dB) average noise level over a 16-hour day cannot exceed 5·2 square kilometres. From 2019, annual performance reports have shown that the airport has never exceeded or come close to that level of noise. As yet, my Department has not received any request to amend the current planning agreement, and I am happy for my Department to engage with the airport on any plans to modify it.

As the roads authority, as I said, my Department is a statutory consultee and technical adviser in the planning process. In that role, officials consider a proposed development's impact on the transport network and compliance with transport policy. Given the aspiration to grow passenger numbers and the importance of connectivity to and from the airport, Belfast City Airport has included revised access arrangements to the site as part of its master plan proposals. My Department will fully engage with Belfast City Airport through the planning process to offer advice on road safety and traffic progression as it develops detailed proposals for enhanced access arrangements to the site.

Outside the statutory roles, my Department is engaged with Translink to consider options for improving connectivity to the site. Last year, over 280,000 passengers travelled on the Airport Express 600 service, which was a 5% growth on the previous year. The timetable that services the airport is extensive. Midweek, buses operate from 5.15 am to 10.00 pm with 20-minute frequencies in the bus service between 7.00 am and 6.00 pm. In addition to introducing new fully electric, branded fleet on that service, Translink continues to work closely with the airport on opportunities to enhance bus services.

I turn to rail services. As recognised in the all-island strategic rail review's final report, whilst Belfast City Airport is currently served by the rail network via the Sydenham station, the connectivity between Sydenham station and Belfast City Airport could be improved. People currently access the airport by many modes, and it will be important to understand what works best for everyone who uses the airport. In line with the review, Translink and my Department are working together to consider options for improved rail accessibility and connectivity to Belfast City Airport.

Given my Department's role, my officials and I have had several meetings with Belfast City Airport at which it has talked about the draft master plan. Domestic aviation accounts for 4% of our local transport emissions. Aviation decarbonisation is addressed via agreed mechanisms such as fleet efficiency, sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) and emissions trading. The British Government set the target of net zero aviation emissions by 2050 via its 'Jet Zero Strategy'. The British Government also introduced and oversee the sustainable aviation fuel mandate, which mandates increased year-on-year usage of SAF blended into jet fuel. The decarbonisation of aviation is already taking place through carbon pricing mechanisms such as the emissions trading scheme (ETS) and the global carbon offsetting and reduction scheme for international aviation (CORSIA). The collective ETS authority is the British, Scottish and Welsh Governments and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. The Climate Change Committee has advised the Executive to work with the British Government to ensure that the aviation sector takes responsibility for mitigating its emissions via measures such as the SAF mandate and the ETS, as well as supporting innovation and the commercialisation of low- and zero-emission aircraft.

The Department for the Economy and DAERA have engagement with British Government Departments through Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and Department for Transport-led stakeholder groups to ensure sight of policy developments and relay to local airports where relevant. Given my Department's roles, my officials engaged with the Department for the Economy on the development of its recently published draft aviation policy. The consultation seeks views on policy positions to support a thriving, sustainable aviation sector that strengthens our connectivity, drives economic growth and works with partners to address taxation, skills and decarbonisation challenges. The Department for the Economy acknowledges that it has been initiated later than originally intended: that was due to resource pressures and a number of immediate time-critical departmental and ministerial objectives that needed to be delivered. The Climate Change Act 2022 does not impose direct legal obligations on private organisations such as Belfast City Airport; rather, any decision that is taken by Belfast City Airport as a private organisation will be subject to current planning rules and statutory obligations.

From the points that were raised in the debate, I think that there is a collective wish for the master plan to be successful, and my Department will certainly work closely with Belfast City Airport and the Department for the Economy and other stakeholders throughout the process. We have to go through the process as it has been laid out, but I hope that we can get a positive outcome that will benefit people not just in Belfast but across the island, because it is a real opportunity for tourism, business and connectivity.

I thank Members for the points that they raised, and I look forward to the continued working with the airport and my ministerial colleagues as the work progresses.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Philip McGuigan to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. Philip, you have five minutes.

Mr McGuigan: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

I support the motion and our amendment.

The potential that the Belfast City Airport master plan 2040 brings not only for Belfast but for communities across the North and, in fact, the island is absolutely huge, and we need to make sure that it is achieved. First, connectivity matters: air travel plays a vital role in supporting our economy, our tourism sector, our businesses and our communities. It connects families, supports inward investment and helps to ensure that people can travel easily for work, education and leisure. The master plan will allow greater travel opportunities for people across our island.

The ambitions set out in the master plan are significant. The potential to accommodate 7 million passengers, double the workforce and contribute £1·7 billion to the economy by 2040 represents a major opportunity for job creation, investment and long-term economic growth. We know the importance of tourism to our local economy. Tourism supports thousands of jobs across hospitality, retail and arts and culture. Belfast continues to grow as an international destination, and strengthening our connectivity is key if we are serious about continuing that growth and attracting visitors from across Europe and further afield.

Importantly, however, this cannot be viewed through the lens of Belfast alone. There is real potential here to strengthen connectivity across the island of Ireland. Better transport links between our towns, cities and airports can support regional balance, and economic development will make travel more accessible for workers, businesses and tourists alike. I particularly welcome the ambition to develop a direct rail connection to the airport. As others have said, that would be a first on the island, and it represents the type of long-term infrastructure planning that we need more of. Expanding rail connectivity is critical not only to improving accessibility but to supporting more sustainable travel choices into the future.

While there are clear economic opportunities, we also need to recognise the concerns that have been raised by residents and environmental groups. We have a responsibility to engage openly and honestly with local communities about any future growth and expansion, and the residents who live around the airport must be part of that conversation. The Economy Minister has launched a consultation on aviation policy that looks at the impact of environmental issues and sustainable travel. That consultation is important because it gives us the opportunity to shape for the future a strategic approach to aviation that balances economic growth with environmental responsibility and community well-being. Sustainability has to be at the heart of future aviation planning. That means investment in greener technologies, better public transport, stronger rail infrastructure and supporting efforts to reduce emissions across the sector. Economic growth and environmental responsibility cannot be treated as separate issues; they have to go hand in hand.

There is also a need for genuine collaboration across Departments, agencies and local government to ensure that infrastructure, tourism, transport and environmental planning are all aligned. If that is delivered as it could and should be, there will be a massive opportunity to grow our economy, support our hospitality sector and improve North/South and east-west connectivity, while ensuring that the environmental concerns that have been raised remain central to the development.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call David Brooks to make a winding-up speech on the motion. David, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr Brooks: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the debate that we have had today and thank all Members for their contributions. While we may yet divide on the amendment, there is a lot of commonality in what has been said around the Chamber. I share some of my colleagues' frustrations that the much-anticipated report on Northern Ireland's air connectivity, which was commissioned by the Department for the Economy, was published almost two years ago. Yet, despite the clear recommendations contained in the York Aviation report, we are still waiting for the Department and the Minister to produce a comprehensive aviation strategy that would allow Northern Ireland to compete more seriously on the global stage. It is time for the Department to match the ambition that we have talked about in the Chamber and heard about from those in the sector.

Without improved air connectivity, we risk leaving our economy dormant, disconnected and unable to seize the growth opportunities that exist globally. Northern Ireland cannot afford to lose out because of a lack of vision for our aviation sector or because of continued delay in delivering the strategic direction that our airports need.

Mr Delargy: I thank the Member for giving way. I have already read out the response that was received in writing in January, which sets out clearly the fact that any delay in that respect has come from Westminster. Do you acknowledge that, and will you amend your comments so that they reflect reality, rather than a DUP policy position?

Mr Brooks: We heard your contribution, and we recognise that there are issues to be resolved. The Department for the Economy needs to step up, however, and we need to see greater delivery against its ambitions.

Mr Brett: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brooks: Yes.

Mr Brett: Does the Member who made the intervention not accept our point, which is that it should not take the Department for the Economy a year to draft a legislative consent motion? It was the Minister who self-imposed a deadline of having a policy by March 2025. She failed to meet that deadline, and her party colleague is now trying to defend her horrendous record in the Department for the Economy.

Mr Brooks: Both Members' contributions are on the record.

Whatever flag we look to, whether it be that of the UK or the Republic of Ireland, we are, to all intents and purposes, island nations. We often hear the term "these islands", while others talk about the "British Isles". Regardless of the term that is used, connectivity, be it with the rest of the United Kingdom, which continues to be our largest market, or with the rest of Europe and beyond, is vital to our economic development. Our airports are not just transport hubs. They provide gateways to foreign direct investment, tourism, exports and international business opportunities. They support world-class manufacturing and engineering sectors that connect Northern Ireland to key markets across the globe. Indeed, I say from the point of view of an East Belfast MLA that the City Airport's location, right at the heart of our aerospace manufacturing industry, is not coincidental, as its history shows.

That is why we strongly welcome the regeneration plans contained in the master plan. The master plan represents a major opportunity for our economy and the wider tourism sector. As has been said, passenger numbers are projected to rise to seven million per annum over the lifetime of the plan. Such growth would generate an estimated £1·7 billion in added value to our economy and support more than 23,000 jobs across Northern Ireland, including 1,100 additional jobs directly on the airport site. The Minister for the Economy has been somewhat shy at times to champion previous investments in our economy, particularly those in the aerospace, defence, security and space sector, which is so key in my constituency in particular, but I hope that she will get behind the master plan. The contribution that was made on her behalf gives us some hope in that regard.

At a time when the Assembly repeatedly discusses productivity, investment and employment, the figures that were stated earlier cannot be ignored. Demand for air travel across the island is expected to more than double by 2040, to 90 million passengers. Northern Ireland alone will need to handle 21 million passengers by that stage. The City Airport master plan is therefore essential in order for the aviation sector to be able to keep pace with demand.

Importantly, as has been said, growth is being proposed without a runway extension, which I know caused concerns in the past. Instead, it focuses on the smarter and more efficient use of existing infrastructure through terminal expansion, additional aircraft stands, improved taxiways and modernised airfield operations. One particularly exciting proposal that has been touched on is the groundbreaking development of a new rail halt serving the airport terminal, which, as has been said, would be the first on the island. It would greatly help local communities, particularly people in Sydenham in my constituency, who often have to deal with those who wish to avoid car parking charges at the airport by parking in the area.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brooks: Yes.

Mr O'Toole: Unfortunately, I was not here for all of the debate. I do not oppose the idea of having an additional railway halt, but, given that the Sydenham halt is already there, could the airport, with the support of the Department, not pursue a quick win through having better signage and providing better access for people to use the airport via the Sydenham halt? I have asked questions about that. That halt is not properly advertised or signposted at the minute.

Mr Brooks: I take the Member's point about signage and so on, but I do not think that it is the most convenient of halts. The parking issues that I am talking about are caused largely by people who park at the halt and then walk to the airport. I think that some changes to parking there have led to that situation. Development in that respect would be welcome, but, in the meantime, it certainly would not hurt to look at making improvements. I am sure that those at the airport, and no doubt the Minister for Infrastructure, will be listening closely.

A rail halt would be transformative for passengers, connectivity and sustainable transport, and there is considerable enthusiasm among local groups that it would be a boost to the local community and community tourism in Northern Ireland and in east Belfast. We know that there are ambitions to extend the greenway network in that direction with plans for the Sydenham greenway. Currently, around 27% of travellers to and from Northern Ireland use Dublin Airport. Improving connectivity and transport links through Belfast City Airport would help to ensure that more tourists and business travellers choose Northern Ireland's airports instead, bringing greater economic benefit directly to our regional economy.

The master plan demonstrates real confidence in Northern Ireland's future. It will strengthen links with the rest of the United Kingdom, create jobs, attract private investment and improve competitiveness. Of course, environmental responsibility matters, and Belfast City Airport has shown that progress can be made. The airport has achieved a 44% reduction in carbon emissions since 2019, demonstrating that economic growth and environmental improvements can, as Members have talked about, go hand in hand. However, there is always the danger that overly rigid or poorly designed regulations could discourage that investment, limit route expansion or undermine the competitiveness of our local airports. We do not want to see a repeat of situations where major infrastructure projects are endlessly delayed because of unrealistic, impractical policy approaches. What is needed is balance in supporting sustainable growth while ensuring that Northern Ireland remains economically competitive and connected.

It is vital that our Departments work together to ensure the smooth and timely delivery of the master plan. We want the Economy Minister to step up and deliver for the aviation sector and remedy the ongoing absence of an aviation strategy. The aviation report commissioned by the Department made clear that such a strategy is essential to the future success of aviation in Northern Ireland. The report was critical of the fact that Northern Ireland's tourism strategy fails to directly acknowledge that improved connectivity is necessary to grow tourism. That must change, and it must change quickly. Today, the Assembly faces a clear choice. Do we support growth, investment and connectivity, or do we continue down a path of delay, uncertainty and bureaucracy? The master plan is about confidence in Northern Ireland's future. It is about ensuring that our economy can compete internationally, attract investment and create opportunities for the next generation. The DUP will continue to champion investment, support economic growth and back the flagship projects that deliver real benefits for the people of Northern Ireland. I support the Belfast City Airport master plan, and I encourage others across the Chamber to do likewise by supporting our motion.