Official Report: Tuesday 12 May 2026

Mrs Mason: Families across the North are stretched to breaking point. Soaring living costs continue to pile unbearable pressure on workers and families across the North. For too many households, the rising cost of childcare remains a heavy burden. Last week, the Department of Education stated that childcare fees have risen by 17% since the introduction of the childcare subsidy scheme. Parents were told that that support would help them, but rising fees have entirely erased the 15% subsidy, leaving families feeling abandoned. A huge Executive investment in a scheme that was meant to make childcare more affordable has instead left many families worse off. They have been forced to shoulder the cost of a serious policy failure.

Parents are under significant pressure and need reassurance that the situation will not continue. The Minister of Education must outline how the childcare strategy will address the trend of increased support being overtaken by rising fees. Hard-pressed working families need to receive the tangible cost reduction that was intended from the childcare subsidy scheme. Rising overheads, staff shortages and retention issues are still hitting providers hard. Childminders have been further squeezed by the loss of the 10% wear-and-tear allowance and the minimum income floor. Unfortunately, the review of minimum standards has failed to deliver the transformations that the sector so badly needs.

It is time for the Minister to go back to the drawing board and deliver a childcare plan that actually works. Parents and childcare providers are clear about that. The Minister must spell out how his strategy will keep childcare costs down, support struggling providers and guarantee high-quality childcare, ensuring that all our children get the very best start in life.

Mr Clarke: Yesterday in the House, a few Members talked about the ridiculous prosecution of Pastor Clive Johnston, a man who wanted to hold to his personal convictions in silence about 100 metres away from a hospital. The Members opposite all supported that ridiculous legislation.

Almost every weekend in Belfast, there is protest after protest. Most of the protests are about the Palestinian plight, so far away. The Members opposite remain silent, however, on the harm that those protests do to the businesses of Belfast.

On Saturday past, they took the protest not outside but inside a shop, where the staff, who have nothing to do with Palestine, were only out to earn a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. Of course, the Members opposite remain silent.

There has been no condemnation of the attacks on the individuals and staff in the shop. There has been no condemnation of the fact that those staff risk losing their jobs. The Members opposite remain silent, but, of course, they were all pontificating when a pastor read from John chapter 3, verse 16. Do the Members opposite not realise the contribution that such shops and banks make to the high street? What if continual protests put jobs at risk? What if those shops close and Belfast City Council loses an enormous amount of rates? What if the people who work in those shops are their voters and come to them when they lose their jobs? Why do they remain silent, and why do they support people going into shops on the high street with their face covered? Pastor Clive was 100 metres away from a hospital. I read the judgement, and it stated that someone may have been in the hospital getting an abortion. What Pastor Clive did is in stark contrast to what happened in Zara in Belfast on Saturday. The protesters took the protest inside the shop; they covered their face; and — guess what? — they even had a megaphone to make sure that all those in the shop and in the vicinity could hear them.

I am highly disappointed with the action, or little action, of the PSNI. The PSNI needs to be more robust in taking action against those protesters. It is right that we have a right to protest in this country, but we do not have the right to intimidate staff and those shopping on the high street for the day. The PSNI needs to be more robust and use the powers that it has to take action against the individuals who take part in those protests and bring them before the courts.

Mr McMurray: I acknowledge the 30th anniversary of the release of the album '1977' in May 1996 by the band Ash. Ash are Tim Wheeler, Mark Hamilton and Rick McMurray, who, for the record, is no relation to me. The school friends attended Down High School in Downpatrick, where they recorded the album. For those who know, the album comes sonically screeching in with the sound of a TIE fighter before the track 'Lose Control' and continues right the way through to 'Darkside Lightside' and the hidden track, which, if you know it, is hard to forget.

The album received critical acclaim. It reached number one in the album chart and also went platinum. However, to me, those guys just captured unadulterated, raucous fun and noise, as well as some of the bad habits that went with adolescence, such as the first drags on a Henri Winterman cigar, that were the basis of the album. It was also the first time that I heard people from here in Northern Ireland create music that I listened to and was on radio shows such as 'Mark and Lard' on Radio 1, on TV and in print magazines.

As well as that, it was not just the album but the band that were really positive for Northern Ireland. The year 1996 was a time of optimism that culminated in the 1998 Good Friday Agreement. I remember Ash playing the classics from the album '1977' at the "Yes" vote concert in the Waterfront Hall. Another band that were there that evening were U2, which you may have heard of, but I was there for Ash. The late David Trimble and John Hume, whose efforts laid some of the foundations for this place, were also there that night.

Finally, Ash have been really supportive of both the Northern Ireland and Downpatrick music scenes. The name of one of their '1977' tracks was given to the Oh Yeah Music Centre in Belfast:

Indeed, they were there the other week, and they are still very supportive of the centre. They have also helped local Downpatrick talent. Charlie Hanlon has supported them at recent gigs, which is really fitting, given the Hanlon family connection to music in Downpatrick. As the big mural in Downpatrick reads:

I am still listening to 'Girl from Mars', so thank you, Ash, and thank you for '1977'. I am looking forward to the concert. Cheers, Wiggy.

Mr McAleer: I am pleased to welcome the return of the Balmoral show this week. It starts tomorrow, Wednesday, and runs until Saturday. The Balmoral show is a key event in our agricultural calendar and is an important celebration of rural communities. Tens of thousands of people will visit the Balmoral show this week. It is one of the biggest and most vibrant agricultural shows in the country. The Balmoral show is an opportunity to showcase all that is good about our farming and rural communities. It is an opportunity to recognise the hard work, resilience and dedication of farmers, producers, rural organisations and rural workers, who are at the heart of our local economy. The show highlights the strength of our agri-food sector and the vital role that it plays in sustaining communities and supporting livelihoods.

I encourage families and visitors to support local producers by coming to the Balmoral show and enjoying all that it has to offer. Events such as the Balmoral show are essential to showcasing our shared heritage, while looking towards a more sustainable and prosperous future. Sinn Féin will, once again, have a stand at the show: you will find us at stand 77 in the Eikon Exhibition Centre. Be sure to call to our stand and, indeed, the stands of all the exhibitors, when you visit the show between tomorrow and Saturday. I wish everyone who is taking part an enjoyable and successful Balmoral show. I pay particular tribute to the Royal Ulster Agricultural Society on what will be another fantastic Balmoral show.

Mr Brett: Another week and yet another disgraceful attack in what is a coordinated and continued campaign of intimidation of the unionist community of Glengormley. In recent months, we have witnessed an attack on our Orange arch, for which there was a conviction. We have seen the attempted destruction of our war memorial; local businesses covered with anti-protestant, anti-unionist graffiti; and our local St John Ambulance station attacked with sectarian graffiti. This weekend, we saw the erection of a poster that stated:

I repeat:

The silence from the media and others who have the honour to represent Glengormley has been deafening. For months, the unionist community in the town that I am proud to come from has had no one to stand up and call out those actions, with the exception of this party. This party removed the sign and reported it to the police, because we are proud of the fact that our town is a mixed community. We are proud that people from all backgrounds, traditions and none come together to celebrate the traditions of Glengormley.

I have a message for the scumbags who are responsible: you will not stop us from remembering our war dead; you will not stop us from celebrating our culture; and you will not intimidate the unionist community out of Glengormley, as you may wish to do. We will continue to proudly remember our war dead and to proudly remember and celebrate our culture. As the saying goes, "We aren't going away, you know". Today and every day, I will stand with my friends and neighbours in that proud mixed community. I call on the parties that claim to call out sectarianism to take one second out of their day to condemn the absolutely disgraceful acts that continue to happen weekly in Glengormley.

Ms Nicholl: It is the National Year of Reading, and it was wonderful to see in the news St Bride's Primary School in south Belfast open its new library. Principal Cathy Hunter, students, parents and local bookshops all came together to create a wonderful library in the school. I loved the interview with the student librarian Saskia who said that it felt really good because all the staff and kids have put so much work and thought into the library, and it is amazing to see how it turned out. It is amazing to see the library.

When I met the National Literacy Trust last week, I was told that 41% of our primary schools do not have a dedicated library space, which is shocking. We know that fewer than three in 10 children aged between eight and 18 enjoy reading — seven out of 10 do not. We know that we have very poor adult literacy rates. One in five adults has very poor literacy, and, if they cannot support their children with reading, the cycle will continue. Reading is so important, not just for literacy and understanding, but because it allows for imagination. If you can imagine yourself as someone else, that allows you to visit different worlds and widen your experience as a human being. Crucially, it creates empathy: it allows us to imagine what it is like to be another person.

If we as an Assembly want to create confident, curious, literate young people, we have to make sure that they have libraries in their schools.

I give credit to Libraries NI, which does fantastic work. It has been working with the National Literacy Trust. However, there is a lack of data. The National Literacy Trust has come up with the statistic of 41% of primary schools not having libraries, but that is a conservative guess. The Education Authority needs to record that data. It would be simple to do, and we would be able to understand where the gaps are and how we can support them. The National Year of Reading is important because it is a time to reflect on the importance of reading, but it is also a time for us to focus minds and see how we can make sure that every primary school has a library. They really should.

Mr McGrath: Members may be aware that today is International Nurses' Day. We should think of the nurses who have possibly just finished a 12-hour shift and are probably exhausted and emotionally drained from doing all that they have had to do overnight in what was probably a short-staffed environment. The daytime staff will be doing that today. We must remember the nurses who miss birthdays, family events and weekends and go above and beyond the call of duty to care for people in the most difficult times in their life. Today is about the fact that, despite everything that we ask of them and despite the pressures, the staff shortages and the burnout that they face, those nurses still turn up at every shift to provide care for people in our community. That is extraordinary.

No health service can survive if its staff are exhausted, undervalued and pushed to breaking point. The basic truth is that, at some point in all of our lives, a nurse has been there for us or for somebody we love. A nurse has been there in moments of fear, in moments of grief, in moments when everything has changed in a heartbeat. Long after we forget that building, the waiting room and the treatment, we remember the nurse — the person who spoke calmly, the person who cared, the person who stayed with us — and the care that we received.

If we truly value nurses, it has to mean more than just warm words. It has to mean proper staffing, fair pay and safe working conditions. It means making sure that the young people who are looking at nursing as a career today will still believe that it is a career worth pursuing tomorrow. We rightly say, "Thank you" to our nurses today, but, if that is all that we do, we have missed the point. The greatest tribute that we can pay to nurses is action, because, if we continue to lose nurses faster than we support them, we fail not only those workers but every patient who relies on them. Yes, today, we say, "Thank you" to our nurses, but tomorrow and the day after that and the day after that, our Executive must prove that the words mean something with delivered, measurable actions for our nurses.

Mr Gaston: A recent response from Minister Nesbitt to a question for written answer raises serious questions about how basic patient data is being recorded across our Health and Social Care system. The Department admits that there is no consistent approach. Some systems record biological sex and others record self-identified gender. That is not a minor administrative issue; it goes to the heart of effective medical care.

Biological reality is not an abstract concept. It is central to diagnosis, treatment, risk assessment and screening for many medical conditions. Any system that fails to record reality accurately creates challenges in medicine and lays bare the fact that the Health Department has been captured by an ideology. I welcome the fact that it is being reviewed. It is deeply concerning that that method of gathering data was ever permitted to be developed to begin with. Who authorised the introduction of self-identified gender fields in the systems and on what basis? Were external organisations consulted in shaping that approach? The model that currently exists has all the hallmarks of something influenced by Stonewall ideology if not written by the organisation itself.

The public are entitled to know how decisions of that nature were taken. That is why I have asked for a list of any LGBTQ+ groups that have engaged with the Department of Health on the issue. I have asked whether it is the Minister's policy that biological sex will be recorded as a mandatory field across all Health and Social Care systems. It should not be a controversial proposition. It is a basic requirement for a functioning health service. It is an indictment of the Health Department that it is so captured by wokery that I have to ask such basic questions. Our health system needs to reflect reality and not dangerous ideology.

Mrs Erskine: The A6 Randalstown to Castledawson; the A6 Londonderry to Dungiven; the Lagan pedestrian and cycle bridge; Belfast Rapid Transit phase 2; the Newry southern relief road; and the A4 Enniskillen bypass: what do all those infrastructure projects have in common? Money has been handed back into the pot in 2025-26 by the Infrastructure Minister because she cannot continue with those projects as a result of net zero climate change targets.

Communities are waiting. Motorists are waiting. Roads are crumbling. Meanwhile, Sinn Féin continues to blame the Brits. It continues to blame everybody else but does not take responsibility for its poor decision-making, which heralded in the net zero climate change targets. Sinn Féin was warned about that, specifically when it came to infrastructure, and now we see projects being held up, such as the one in my constituency, a much needed project to reduce congestion in a town that is integral to the economy of my constituency. A sum of £16·3 million was handed back. That is such a sad indictment in relation to what we are dealing with with our roads and major capital projects in Northern Ireland.

The Minister will say that those are committed-to projects, and they are. She will say that I am creating fear and concern in communities, but there is a simple economic factor, namely inflation. With delay, the cost of the projects rises. With a cash-strapped Executive, we will have to find over £25·5 million for those projects, but we will also have to fund a shortfall because delay costs.

It is time for parties to own this and to understand that net zero targets have caused the problem. Recently, in the Chamber, the SDLP, Sinn Féin, Alliance and the UUP all backed the writing of a blank cheque for spending on net zero and climate change in Northern Ireland. When you go to the doors in your constituency, think about the amount of money that has been handed back on our major roads capital projects in Northern Ireland. The simple reality is that Sinn Féin is not delivering.

Ms Flynn: A chairde

almost exactly one year ago, I stood in the Chamber to speak about Seán's law and the urgent need for better mental health crisis intervention services across our communities. Sadly, we know that the issues remain just as pressing today.

On Thursday 14 May, in Dromintee, family, friends and members of the wider community will come together to remember Seán Boyle on what would have been his 30th birthday. It will be a day to honour Seán's life and renew the call for change through Seán's law. Seán was just 24 years old when he tragically died by suicide in June 2020. He was a young man who wanted help. He reached out for support on multiple occasions, but the services that he needed simply where not there when he needed them most.

Despite increased awareness around mental health, the reality on the ground remains deeply concerning. Too many people in crisis still face long waiting lists, fragmented services and a postcode lottery when it comes to accessing emergency intervention and support. Families are still left to navigate incredibly difficult situations alone. We know that inaction carries a devastating human cost. That is why the campaign for Seán's law remains so important.

Today, I pay particular tribute to Sinead Boyle. In the face of unimaginable grief, Sinead has shown extraordinary strength, dignity and determination. She has turned personal tragedy into tireless advocacy, speaking openly about mental health and addiction and challenging all of us here to do better. Her courage is admirable and inspirational.

The event on Thursday night is not simply about remembrance but about ensuring that those who are still fighting for help and support today know that they are seen, heard and valued. I encourage Members, if they are available, to attend the remembrance event in Dromintee on Thursday evening and to stand with Sinead and the wider Boyle family in Seán's memory and in the memory of all those whom we have lost too soon to suicide. Let us recommit ourselves to building a better mental health system that listens, responds and saves lives.

Mr K Buchanan: I want to offer big congratulations to local mid-Ulster lad Jack Burrows on a fantastic start to his Moto4 British Cup season. Jack is the son of John Burrows, who is well known to many as a former road racer and now as the man behind the Burrows Engineering/RK Racing team. It is clear that talent runs in the family.

Jack kicked off the season in style with his first ever win in the series. He followed that up with two strong second-place finishes. Thanks to that brilliant weekend, he now sits at second place in the overall standings. I do not know a lot about motorbike racing, but I know hard work and determination when I see it. Jack has been progressing every year and went into this season hoping to be in the top five regularly. His results show that he is well on track to do even better than that.

"Well done" to Jack, his family, his team and everyone who supports him. I know that his school and the whole mid-Ulster community are incredibly proud of what he is achieving. Jack, I wish you every success for the rest of the season and your future.

Mr Speaker: That brings Members' statements to a conclusion. We are now ready to move to the Final Stage of the RHI (Closure of Non-Domestic Scheme) Bill. The Minister is not in her place yet, so Members may take their ease for a moment, please.

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

Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate. I call the Minister for the Economy to open the debate.

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

I am pleased that the Bill, which will enable my Department to make regulations to close the non-domestic renewable heat incentive (RHI) scheme, has reached Final Stage.

Members will be aware of the history of the RHI scheme, and I will not revisit the scheme's flaws today. It is sufficient to say that, for the first time, there is consensus between political parties, participants and the British Treasury over how to manage the scheme.

That is a significant achievement in itself.

I am grateful to the Committee for the Economy for the work that it carried out in scrutinising the Bill. The Committee has also put a substantial amount of work into scrutinising the proposals for regulations to be made under the new powers in the Bill, and I thank it for the time that it took during Committee Stage to consider the detailed policy proposals for closure. I also thank the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) for its work on the Bill.

My officials gave assurances to the Committee that the regulations would be brought forward swiftly. To that end, following completion of the Bill's Final Stage, my Department will send further information to the Committee, including an SL1 letter and an updated draft of the regulations. That will support the Committee's continuing scrutiny of the regulations in advance of Royal Assent and allow the formal processes to be concluded as quickly as possible thereafter.

My Department engaged extensively with stakeholders throughout the development of the proposals for closure, including through public consultation and engagement with representative bodies such as the Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU) and the Renewable Heat Association Northern Ireland (RHANI). I thank them for their constructive engagement. I also thank Professor David Rooney and Ian Marshall from Queen's University for their support, which helped inform and strengthen the proposals. I am confident that the proposals for closure and the arrangements for existing participants will enable the scheme to be closed in a way that is fair to participants and the taxpayer.

I will now address a number of specific issues that the Committee raised during its scrutiny. Members will be aware that the Bill sets out the legal framework for closing the scheme, with detailed arrangements to follow in regulations. Given the technical and operational nature of the scheme, I am satisfied that that is the most appropriate approach to take, particularly as the regulations will be subject to draft affirmative approval by the Assembly.

On payments, the Committee considered the proposed approach to tariffs, the use of historical data and the banding model. I assure Members that that approach is evidence-based and is designed to deliver reasonable returns to participants while protecting the public finances. The use of historical data provides a clear and consistent basis for payments, while the banding approach offers a proportionate and practical way for participants to make ongoing declarations about use.

The Committee also considered compliance arrangements. I can confirm that the regulations will include a clear and proportionate framework for assurance, including appropriate inspection and enforcement powers, where necessary. I reiterate the assurances provided to the Committee, specifically that all necessary approvals are in place; that the proposals deliver value for money and are affordable within the annually managed expenditure (AME) budget; that an appropriate level of assurance will be provided on the operation of the closure arrangements through the publication of information in aggregate form in respect of closure-accredited installations; and that the draft affirmative process provides for an appropriate level of Assembly oversight of the closure regulations and any future regulations made under the powers in the Bill.

The Bill is vital, as it lays the foundation for the closure of the RHI scheme. I reiterate the Department's commitment to ensuring that that is achieved in a way that is fair to participants and the taxpayer. I commend the RHI (Closure of Non-Domestic Scheme) Bill to the House.

Mr Brett (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Economy): I will first make some remarks as the Chair of the Committee for the Economy.

The Bill allows the Department to make regulations to close the non-domestic RHI scheme, to prevent anyone else joining the scheme and to restrict or cancel aspects of the scheme. In line with the findings of the RHI inquiry, the Bill is a stop button for the RHI scheme, which will be achieved through regulation-making powers that will require the Assembly's approval.

The Bill also includes the power to make regulations to vary the sums paid by the Department to scheme participants until the scheme is completely closed and to take into account a deemed or notional generation of heat based on how non-domestic RHI boilers were used in the past. They will be used to determine ongoing closure payments to scheme participants. All of that will be subject to draft affirmative resolution, meaning that it will be debated in the Chamber and passed by the Assembly. It is understood that that can happen as soon as the Bill achieves Royal Assent.

With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I will briefly summarise the Committee's consideration of the Bill, given the public interest in the matter. Committee Stage commenced on 20 October 2025. A call for evidence was launched to which a number of responses were received. Oral evidence on the Bill was considered from Professor Rooney of Queen's University Belfast, the Renewable Heat Association Northern Ireland and the Ulster Farmers' Union. Advice was considered on the regulation-making powers in the Bill and on the interaction between the Bill and the European Convention on Human Rights and article 2(1) of the Windsor framework.

Members also considered feedback from the Department on the consultation that it undertook on the draft RHI closure regulations. The Committee agreed its report on the Committee Stage on 25 February 2026, and it was circulated to all Members. The Bill includes only one active clause, which sets out high-level regulation-making powers. Consequently, there was no detail in the Bill on the key RHI non-domestic scheme closure issues, including the closure tariffs, the use of historic data and the banding arrangements.

Members generally felt that the use of historic data and banding arrangements, though unusual, would likely limit the cost of the scheme to no more than £196 million over the next 10 years, comply with state aid rules and Treasury requirements and thus greatly limit the likelihood of an additional charge against the Northern Ireland block. Although they are not included in the Bill, the Committee felt that the tariffs were calculated on a rational basis and do not appear to generate either unreasonably high or unreasonably low returns for boiler owners and thus meet the requirements of the relevant court rulings. In any event, the Bill provides the Department with the power to make regulations that could allow for all necessary corrective changes, including the clawback of payments or suspension of the scheme, should that be required. As indicated, those regulation-making powers would be subject to Assembly approval.

Members noted assertions from the Ulster Farmers' Union that metering data continued to be available for many boiler owners and that the UFU welcomed a robust compliance monitoring system. The Committee therefore welcomed departmental assurances that metering data may be used to provide assurance for boiler use.

Members also encouraged the Department to publish the detail of its compliance regime and regular updates on related statistics. All of that was seen as vital to ensuring public confidence.

The overall conclusion of the Committee was that the intent of the Bill was to provide for controls in respect of RHI payments that were proportionate and struck a fair balance between the general public interest of the community and the private interests of persons who have been accredited to the scheme. The costs are substantial, but the Committee understood that they are capped. They are, in effect, in line with the mandate of the court, and the Bill would allow the Department to intervene and amend, should that be required. On that basis, the Committee proposed no amendments to the Bill. I will conclude my part of the speech by thanking the Department for responding to Committee queries in a timely manner.

I will make a couple of comments in my capacity as an MLA. It is important to recognise that the Minister has achieved consensus between political parties, the public and boiler operators. That is to be welcomed, and the Minister should be commended for that. I thank her for her commitment today that she will bring forward the regulations to the Committee as soon as possible, along with the relevant SL1, to allow the Committee and the House to pass their judgement on them.

The intent from all Committee members was that we should achieve a fair and proportional outcome that benefited the public and respected and benefited genuine participants. I think that the Minister and the Department have managed to achieve that, though that cannot be the end of the journey on the issue. On a number of occasions, I raised with the Department the requirement that work begins in earnest on how we spend the rest of the AME funding to ensure that Northern Ireland continues on its journey towards a just and fair transition. While it is not technically relevant to the Bill, perhaps the Minister could give a commitment in her winding-up remarks that she will continue to engage with officials to ensure that we spend the remainder of that money moving forward for the benefit of schemes across Northern Ireland.

With that, my party will support the passage of the Bill today.

Ms McLaughlin: Today's Final Stage of the Bill marks the closing chapter of one of the darkest episodes in the history of devolution. The renewable heat incentive scheme should have been an opportunity. It should have helped Northern Ireland transition to cleaner energy and supported businesses to reduce costs and emissions. Instead, it became synonymous with waste, scandal and public anger.

For years, people here watched as confidence in the institutions collapsed. They saw a scheme without proper cost controls, warnings ignored and the consequences spiral into a political crisis that brought the institutions down. That damage ran far more deeply than the financial cost. At a time when families were struggling and public services were under pressure, people looked at the RHI scandal and asked themselves whether government was capable of acting in the public interest. Trust was broken, and rebuilding it has taken years. Therefore, while the Bill is technical in nature, its significance is much broader. Closing the scheme finally draws a line under a policy failure that cast a long shadow across our politics and the institutions. It is an acknowledgement that the scheme failed and caused enormous damage and that the lessons from it must never be ignored. The truth is that RHI did not fail because renewable energy is the wrong ambition; it failed because of poor governance, weak oversight and political failure.

As we debate the legislation, there is an important lesson for all of us in the Chamber: Northern Ireland still faces huge challenges around energy policy, energy affordability and decarbonisation. We need to expand renewable generation, improve energy security and lower costs for households and businesses, which remain exposed to volatile geopolitics and global markets, but we can do that only if there is public confidence in the decisions that we make here. That means proper transparency, scrutiny and accountability. It means getting policy right from the beginning. The public expect better from us after what happened with the RHI scheme. We expect Ministers and Departments to properly assess risk, properly manage public money and properly listen when concerns are raised. Those are not unreasonable expectations; they are the bare minimum.

As the scheme finally comes to an end, we should remember its wider consequences for politics and public trust here. We cannot undo the damage that was done, but we can ensure that the failures that led to the scandal are never repeated. That must be the lasting lesson of RHI.

Mr Delargy: I support the Bill, which will finally see the closure of the renewable heat incentive scheme. The scheme began when I was still at school. I say that to highlight the longevity of the issue and the long shadow that it has cast over politics here. I say it also to highlight the fact that successive DUP Ministers failed to address its legacy and the fact that, once again, a Sinn Féin Minister has had to step in to clear up the mess and deal with the incompetence and economic illiteracy of the DUP in the Department for the Economy.

People across the North will rightly remember the anger that RHI caused. People will remember that, when budgets and front-line services were under pressure — they remain so — we saw the ineptitude of the party opposite in addressing a clearly shambolic scheme that has continued to impact on people here. Spectacularly, the scheme allowed participants to earn as they burned. For every £1 that a participant spent, they received a £1·60 return. Basic mathematics would have told you that, from its inception, that formula would not work. The flawed scheme allowed participants to burn excessive amounts of fuel in order to get a higher financial return, which, in itself, is very much at odds with the principles of climate action and the need to improve energy efficiency.

Those failures occurred on the watch of the DUP Ministers who held responsibility for the Department for the Economy. During their tenure, warnings were dismissed, and opportunities to intervene were ignored, with the result that the scheme was allowed to spiral out of control and a financial scandal was allowed to take place. A whistle-blower pointed out that, in one case, over the 20-year lifetime of the scheme, a farmer could have made £1 million simply by heating an empty shed. The Audit Office, which was scathing about the scheme, highlighted that a business in Britain might receive £192,000 in subsidy, whereas the same business here would earn £860,000.

Taken together, it is estimated that, by 2036, that will amount to an overspend of more than £400 million — money that will fall to the Executive and, ultimately, to the taxpayer.

The investigation afterwards spelled it out: controls were weak, decisions were taken that should never have been signed off and basic governance was missing. The cost to the public purse and to trust in politics was avoidable, so closing the scheme properly matters. When the DUP held the Economy portfolio, those issues were not gripped early enough and the waste continued. People looking in from the outside saw delay and excuses. The DUP thought that because the funding was AME, it could do whatever it wanted — it could fill its boots. Worryingly, the economically illiterate DUP still does not understand how AME works. Recently, both its party leader and the Chair of the Economy Committee mistakenly claimed that the £81 million for an electricity discount scheme could be repurposed. The Treasury has had to write repeatedly to tell them that AME funding can only be used for a comparable scheme. With a Sinn Féin Minister now in post, we are finally beginning to bring this to an end on the basis of transparency, oversight and value for money.

For a long time, RHI became shorthand for what happens when government gets the basics wrong. It cost money, damaged trust and left people asking who was in charge. I welcome the Minister's work on this and the concern to get the Bill to its Final Stage. The Minister has shown the focus and drive that is needed to resolve a scheme that, in practice, advantaged a small number while the wider public carried, and have continued to carry, the cost. The Bill is part of putting that right. It shows what it looks like when the Department is run by a Minister with clear priorities, openness, accountability and an approach to the economy that works for everyone.

The Department has reviewed what remained, fixed long-standing issues and strengthened oversight. The Bill represents the final step and gives certainty and closure, while keeping the balance right between scheme participants and the taxpayer. Crucially, closing RHI does not mean walking away from renewable heat or from future support schemes. Rather, it means learning from what went wrong so that any future programme is properly designed, costed and policed. The purpose here is straightforward; it is to protect public money and make sure that the Department can finish the remaining administrative work in a fair and transparent way. That includes final payments where they are due and compliance checks where those are needed.

The Bill is about closure and protecting the public interest. It draws a clear line under a scheme that should never have been allowed to run as it did. I support the Final Stage of the Bill.

Mr Honeyford: I rise to welcome the closure, finally, of the RHI scheme. It was an episode that will live long in the memory of this place, but it is now something that we can put to bed and move on together to try to make things better for people. I also acknowledge that the Minister has managed to bring all parties together in order to bring this to a close. That is something to thank her for and to welcome.

At the outset with this legislation, my priority and that of the Alliance Party was fairness to people who had gone into the scheme legitimately. We wanted to make sure that people were treated with respect and were looked after so that they would not be wiped out by a change in government policy. During the Bill's progress through Committee and through the House, I raised some issues that I had around banding. I thank the Minister and the Department for addressing those issues and for creating extra bands that allow for flexibility. I understand the need for flexibility in the system in order to allow it to operate for the next 10 years. However, this is also about making sure that the taxpayer is protected and that we are not giving away money for burning, which is what originally happened. I put on record my thanks to the Department for taking that away and looking at it. I also thank the groups that gave evidence to us and stood up for the people who had boilers. Andrew Trimble from RHANI, the UFU, Professor David Rooney and others gave evidence to help the Committee through the process, and it is only right and fair that we acknowledge them.

The end of the scheme will be music to the ears of everybody outside here, but the ghost of RHI must not hold the Department back as we move forward. We have to move forward now with the freedom of the AME budget and be able to transition away from fossil fuels to renewables. The Department needs to move at pace. As the closure of the scheme comes through, we need to see action. I know that that is the Minister's view as well, and she has committed to that. I hope that the past will not overshadow the future. I want to see a better future in which we can transition to renewables at a faster pace to allow everybody to be free of RHI and move forward. I am happy to support the Bill's Final Stage.

Ms D Armstrong: I support the Final Stage of the RHI (Closure of Non-Domestic Scheme) Bill and thank the Minister and the Department for bringing us to this important stage in the process.

It is important, however, to set out clearly how we arrived at this point and why the process is now the only credible path forward. The original non-domestic RHI scheme was introduced with the intention of stimulating renewable heat generation, but, as Members know and as we have heard in the Chamber, the design flaws were significant. The absence of tiered tariffs, the lack of cost controls and the failure to link payments to fuel efficiency created a perverse incentive structure. The result was a scheme that grew far beyond its budget and far beyond its policy intent.

Let us not forget the impact that the scheme had on boiler owners who participated in good faith and were penalised and misaligned. To them, I say this: I trust that the effort that the Committee and its members have made to recognise the need for restitution for you is acceptable. The Economy Committee has had to intervene in an attempt to regulate the scheme. Tiered tariffs, banded thresholds and annual payment caps have been introduced to prevent further overspend. Cost control regulations, technical audits and revised accreditation rules have been implemented. Each measure has been necessary to stabilise a scheme that had become financially unsustainable and reputationally damaging. Even with those corrective steps, however, the scheme has never fully recovered public confidence. The reality is that, in its current form, the non-domestic RHI scheme cannot deliver the strategic outcomes that Northern Ireland needs.

Accepting closure is not an admission of defeat; it is an acceptance of reality and an opportunity to move forward. Closure of the scheme opens the way for the development of the renewable energy price guarantee (REPG) scheme, which must be designed with proper scrutiny, robust modelling and transparent governance. If the Department for the Economy gets the REPG scheme right, it can provide the certainty that investors need, the stability that businesses require and the environmental outcomes that our climate commitments demand. However, a new scheme alone will not be enough. Northern Ireland urgently needs a credible renewable energy policy framework that matches the scale of global competition. Investors are already looking to jurisdictions with clear pathways for great capacity expansion, offshore wind deployment and long-term renewable integration. If we do not act quickly, those investors will go elsewhere. We need a grid capable of supporting large-scale renewable generation and a planning system aligned with our energy ambitions. We also need an offshore policy that signals to the market that Northern Ireland is serious about becoming a leader in, not a slow adopter of, clean energy.

Closing the RHI scheme is a necessary step, but it must be the first step in a much larger journey. The REPG scheme, combined with urgent action on grid capacity and offshore wind, can finally position Northern Ireland as a competitive, modern and sustainable energy region. Let us ensure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated and that the opportunities of the future are not missed. I welcome the Final Stage of the RHI (Closure of Non-Domestic Scheme) Bill and the chance to put the scheme behind us once and for all.

Mr Kearney: Some 10 years after the spectacular DUP mismanagement of and arrogance about the RHI scheme, which led directly to the collapse of these political institutions, that scheme is finally set to close. The RHI scheme should have been a positive and constructive green energy initiative that contributed to decarbonisation and our overall renewable energy strategy. Instead, it descended into financial scandal. The gross mismanagement that was presided over by former DUP leader Arlene Foster, who was then a DUP Minister, brought the entire scheme into abject disrepute. It took a public inquiry, which cost the taxpayer £13 million, to confirm that the problems with the administration of the scheme were already apparent by 2015. However, despite warnings from numerous whistle-blowers, RHI was allowed to run on, costing £500 million of taxpayers' money. It created a black hole in our regional economy, which overlapped with the onset of Tory austerity here. That DUP-induced financial scandal provoked systemic political instability in our political institutions from which we have arguably never recovered.

At the same time, marriage equality rights, women's reproductive rights and Irish language rights were being blocked by the DUP. The Brexit catastrophe quickly followed. Today, the DUP is still content to take a wrecking ball to our political institutions in order to slow down change and combat intra-unionist electoral rivalry. Its cash-for-ash scheme is a monument to arrogance in government. Multiple well-meaning businesses and households have been hurt by that travesty. The current Minister for the Economy has allocated £196 million for compensation and closure payments over the next 10 years to assist those who participated in the RHI scheme in good faith.

Ultimately, the DUP's RHI debacle is set to cost the taxpayer approximately £1 billion. Just weeks ago in the Assembly, during a debate on a Bill that was brought forward by my colleague Danny Baker, we listened to the Education Minister and his party colleagues lecture us all on fiscal responsibility as we discussed feeding hungry children. Against the backdrop of RHI, the hypocrisy of DUP posturing when it comes to helping the most needy and vulnerable in our society is lost on no one — even, I would hazard, those in its electoral base.

Dr Archibald: I thank all those who have contributed to today's debate. Again, I put on record my appreciation of the Committee and everyone who has worked constructively to get us to this stage.

I will briefly respond to some of the points that were made by Members in the debate. I give assurances about the AME that will now not be used for RHI payments. The closure is now in place and we have certainty about the payments, which means that we are able to utilise that money for other purposes. However, the words that have been used on numerous occasions in recent weeks about the NIRO electricity discount also apply to the comparable scheme. We have been working with Treasury officials over the past number of months on what that might look like, and on how we might utilise the funding that remains and put it to good use for those purposes. We will keep the Committee updated as that develops and we move beyond the closure stage today to bringing forward the regulations.

I agree with Members: although we need to learn the lessons of the past, that cannot get in the way of our having ambitious energy policy for the future. We need to ensure that we have secure, affordable and sustainable energy, which is what the Department, including officials in energy branch, is now focused on. It is important that we balance risk, and recognising risk, with appropriate levels of governance and transparency as we move forward.

We need to see investment in our grid infrastructure and incentives for renewable investment here, and the work that is being done now on energy across different policy areas in the Department will bring us to that position.

My objective throughout has been to get the balance right between fairness to scheme participants and fairness to taxpayers, and I think that that has been achieved in the regulations, which the Committee has helpfully shaped with us by bringing to them a level of scrutiny that allowed us to get to the right place. As I said, that scrutiny involved speaking to participants, who have knowledge of how the scheme operates. We have therefore got to a good place today, and I am glad that there is now consensus across the Chamber on the issue. I again thank Members for that. I commend the Bill to the Assembly.

Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): I beg to move

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

Mr Mathison: The Committee for Education finds itself in the slightly unusual position of currently carrying out Committee Stage for two private Members' Bills that are sponsored by its own members. That may be a first, but I am happy to be corrected. I commend my Committee colleagues for the work that they have done so far to progress the Bills to their current stage in the legislative process.

Danny Baker MLA is sponsoring the Education (Holiday Meal Payments) Bill, which is a short, four-clause Bill. Its intent is to complement the term-time free school meals provision by extending it by way of a financial payment to eligible children and young people during holiday periods. To date, the Committee has taken introductory briefings from the Bill sponsor and has received correspondence from departmental officials. It has received procedural advice from Committee Clerks and Bill Clerks and has plotted what it considers to be a reasonable time frame to allow for good Committee Stage scrutiny of the Bill.

As is the case with any private Member's Bill, the sponsor is keen to progress it as quickly as possible. Particularly for that Bill, however, the issue of commencement has been important to the discussions. The sponsor has been very clear in his contributions to the Committee that he wants to ensure that, if it can be avoided, no holiday period is missed out under the Bill. He has therefore been very clear that he wants to work with the Committee and stakeholders to bring deliberations through to readiness for the amending stages in the House as soon as possible.

The Committee has engaged with its regular stakeholder lists but also with some specialist stakeholders that focus on the area of anti-poverty interventions. As usual, the Committee has commissioned research and legal support for the process. As with any Bill making its way through the House in the final year of a mandate, we are mindful of the pressures on Assembly time. On that basis, the Committee has agreed to run a parallel process for its survey and the taking of its oral evidence in order to try to compact the process as much as possible. The Committee decided on its timeline for the Bill's Committee Stage, with due care and attention being paid to the competing priorities of the Committee's work and the crucial components of good scrutiny. Having considered all those relevant factors, the Committee agreed to seek to extend the Bill's Committee Stage until 18 September 2026.

The Bill's unique subject matter has given rise to a lot of discussion at Committee Stage on the principles of the Bill, and, rather than rehearse Second Stage, we will be keen to draw our focus on to the clauses and what the effect of each will be. Undoubtedly, that will be a challenge that the Committee will have to navigate. However, issues already being highlighted for discussion include: the scope for interdepartmental or sharing of the financing of the provisions of the Bill; the recurrent funding impacts of the Bill; and other provisions that could operate to deliver similar policy outcomes, such as breakfast clubs or social supermarkets in local communities. All those issues have been flagged, as well as potential challenges around the logistics of payment methods and access to bank accounts. Client groups such as asylum seekers have been mentioned as an area that may need attention.

The Committee appreciates that the Bill is likely to be of wide interest to educational stakeholders and community and voluntary organisations. In addition, the Department has highlighted technical feedback around the drafting of the Bill that it wants to provide in the coming weeks. We hope to have that evidence from the Department soon.

The Committee is clear that it intends to carry out effective and appropriate scrutiny at Committee Stage and is doing that through the normal components: a call for evidence; oral evidence sessions; Committee deliberation on evidence received; further engagement as required with departmental officials and the Bill sponsor and their team; development and consideration of potential Committee amendments; informal and formal clause-by-clause scrutiny and approval of the Bill; and consideration and approval of the final report to the Assembly. The Committee believes that the timescale set out in the motion strikes the right balance between covering those stages in the detail required and allowing the work on the Bill to be completed in time to give it an opportunity to proceed during this mandate.

The Committee appreciates the Bill sponsor's strong desire to see it pass through Committee Stage with as little delay as possible. We wanted to engage this short extension to ensure that due process was followed and good scrutiny ensued. On balance, I am content that the Committee Stage extension to 18 September 2026 is reasonable, proportionate and constitutes adequate time for consideration of all relevant factors in the Bill's legislative proposals.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Nick. No other Member has indicated that they wish to speak, so I am going to move straight to the Question.

Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed that there will be no time limit on the debate.

Mr Mathison: The issues for this motion are going to be very similar to those of the previous motion, so, hopefully, will not take up too much of Members' time.

The Committee has decided its timeline for the Committee Stage of the Irish-medium Education (Workforce Plan) Bill, giving due care and attention to the competing priorities and crucial components of good scrutiny. As was referenced in the previous motion, we have an unusual scenario of two Bill sponsors sitting on the Committee hearing the evidence, so the Committee is obviously being urged from those quarters to move the Bills through as quickly as possible. However, the Committee has had to balance that with what will deliver appropriate and thorough scrutiny.

The Bill is short, succinctly drafted and its scope is narrowly defined. The Bill sponsor has been clear that that is intentional. Its aim is strategic, and it has been the Committee's conclusion that it is likely that stakeholder input will be limited largely to those in the Irish-medium education field. We do not anticipate wide interest beyond that, although we are ensuring that all Education Committee stakeholders are given the opportunity to contribute should they wish. Given those factors, and the particular content of the Bill, the Committee agreed a motion to extend the Committee Stage for the Bill until 30 August 2026. The Committee has already launched a Citizen Space survey on the provisions of the Bill, and has invited written submissions on the proposals.

The Committee appreciates that the Bill may have a fairly narrow interest, limited to those involved in Irish-medium education both at the policy level and in delivery at school level. However, we still intend to carry out effective and appropriate to scrutiny via the core components of a Committee Stage. I will not rehearse those as we went through them in the debate on the previous motion, but they are the same as for that Bill.

The Committee has designed its timeline to permit adequate time to complete each of those steps. As with any other Bill that comes before it, the Committee will aim to complete its task before the extension date, if possible and if comprehensive scrutiny has been given in the time taken. The standard 30-day term, set out in Standing Order 33(2), is not clear, and it would be unusual to run a Committee Stage as quickly as that. The Committee feels that, given the Bill's narrow scope, we will be able to move through it reasonably rapidly, but we have built in that extension over the summer period in case anything unexpected should come through in the evidence heard. The Committee has a little slack built in to hear additional evidence, should it be required.

I am content that, on balance, the Committee Stage extension date of 30 August 2026 is reasonable, proportionate and constitutes adequate time for consideration of all relevant factors in the Bill's proposals.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: No other Member has indicated that they want to speak.

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

Miss McAllister: I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: 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. An amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, so the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate.

Miss McAllister: I rise to highlight an issue that grows ever larger in our society: the lack of fit-for-purpose autism services. At the outset, I will say what many people have said for years: autistic people always existed, long before they received diagnosis, recognition or inclusion. They existed, often adapting, masking and trying to fit in best to a society that is not made for neurodiverse people and that needs to change.

The rates of autism diagnosis are growing, as are the numbers of children and young people waiting on an assessment for autism, because, finally, they have recognition that they can and should receive the support and diagnosis that they need.

In the Chamber last October, I highlighted the fact that over 17,000 children and young people in Northern Ireland are waiting for an autism diagnosis. Despite some scepticism and a query from FactCheckNI, that was confirmed to be the case, with the Minister confirming in response to a question for written answer that 17,205 children were waiting for an autism assessment.

Too often, those waits are not short. The National Autistic Society states that assessment and diagnostic waiting times in some trust areas can be as long as four years for children and over five years for adults, despite NICE guidelines stating that it should take no longer than three months. That is over 17,000 children and young people and their families left waiting in uncertainty, often forced to access mental health services due to the anxiety that that has caused.

It is becoming more and more clear that our health system does not have the services in place to ensure that, once those children and young people have their autism diagnosis confirmed, they receive the support that they need. I am sure that we could provide plenty of anecdotal examples in our speeches today — queries from people who have come to our constituency offices about the exorbitant waiting time to receive a diagnosis in the first place or, if you are lucky enough to get through that wait and receive a diagnosis, the insufficiency of the services, the availability of which too often depends on where you live and which trust area you fall under. As Ema Cubitt, the Independent Autism Reviewer, put it in her first annual review, published two weeks ago:

That is why I have been trying to get to the bottom of the role of the Department of Health in ensuring that there are accessible, equitable, fit-for-purpose autism services, particularly for young people once they receive a diagnosis and before that. Last November, through a question for written answer, I asked the Minister whether there was a support pathway for families and young people following a diagnosis of autism. The Minister confirmed that:

for autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Following on from that, in January I submitted another question for written answer, asking the Minister whether there was:

following diagnosis. The Minister responded:

following diagnosis. I then asked the Minister whether the emotional health and well-being framework would address the lack of obligated support. In his answer, the Minister stated that trusts "offer" post-diagnosis support, that:

and that the emotional health and well-being framework would help to "identify gaps in service" and to:

However, there is no commitment to ensure that the framework will address the lack of obligated support for children and young people following a diagnosis of autism. Finally, in March, I submitted the most straightforward question that I could formulate and asked the Minister to confirm:

for anyone, including children, who receive an autism diagnosis. In response, the Minister claimed:

and that trusts:

The Minister may claim that, technically, that is the case, but his previous answers and the lived experience of service users on the ground are clear: the services delivered by the trusts are not fit for purpose.

The current model of post-diagnosis provision is not working. Once someone finally makes it through the waiting list to receive a diagnosis, there is no guarantee of what, if any, support they will be offered. There is a lack of clear pathways, and support is inconsistently rolled out across trusts, and there are reports of disagreement across trusts on the best clinical pathways to utilise. All the while, children and young people who have received an autism diagnosis are left waiting for support, too often having to change their way of life to fit neurotypical societal expectations. The most common-sense way of dealing with that is for the Department of Health to step up and provide clear direction on post-diagnosis services. Ultimately, that goes to the heart of the issue. While they are left waiting for support services, children and young people have to adapt their lives just to fit in. There seems to be an attitude in Northern Ireland that we treat those with autism as if there is something wrong with them and as if it is something to be dealt with, rather than simply accepting that it is a normal aspect of life. It is attitudes such as that that have led to increasing demand for mental health support for those with autism.

The picture is no better for children and young people with the most complex needs. In the Chamber, I have often raised the issue of the insufficient and inequitable respite and short break provision across the trust areas. The announcement, in 2024, of £13·1 million recurrent funding in that area was welcome, but too many families still experience difficulties in accessing respite services. I again pay tribute to the families who took part in the 'Spotlight' documentary, 'I Am Not Okay', for taking the brave decision to show the difficulties that their families face. The Minister has claimed that he knows that the families featured in that documentary are now content with the services that they receive, but that needs to be called out: all but one of the young people featured in the documentary are now in need of residential support due to not receiving the respite support that they needed, and the families are in such a dire position that the National Autistic Society has updated its campaign to say, "We are still not OK". I am in constant contact with those families, and the fact that the Minister claims that they are content with the support that they have received raises questions. Has the Minister taken his eye off the ball, having made a commitment to help those families? The families are clear, however, that it has never been about just them. I recently learned that the Northern Ireland children's hospital reached out to the Department of Health to say, "We will offer that respite support. We have the ability to do so, if you fund us". The Department's answer to that was no and that the money would go to the trusts.

What about the families, young people and adults who are living without a diagnosis or support? The system is so broken that it takes years to get a diagnosis and support, if they get it, but we all know that early intervention is key. Support should be granted if people need it, and a diagnosis should never be necessary when help is needed. Many families are turning to private care: private diagnoses and private mental health support. Meanwhile, community and voluntary sector organisations such as NAS, Autism NI and Middletown Centre for Autism are picking up the pieces to provide support where the state has failed. That is not new but is nonetheless not acceptable.

We are happy to support the amendment. Post-19 support is critical to ensuring that there is a smooth transition from youth to adulthood for young people who live with autism or a learning disability. We have spoken many times about our support for Caleb's cause.

I thank the many families who have reached out to me about support or to raise issues around perceptions of autism and to share their stories. One young person said to me, "Just because my mind has its own way of working doesn't mean that it is any less important than yours. Why do I always have to change to fit into a world that should make me feel welcome and included?". Those words really hit home to me. Autism support and diagnosis are important, but so — perhaps even more so — is the importance and value of the acceptance that perhaps this world needs to change to be more accepting and inclusive of everyone, no matter who they are.

Mr Gaston: I beg to move the following amendment:

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Timothy, you will have 10 minutes to propose the amendment and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes.

Timothy, please open the debate on the amendment.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. The motion addresses one of the most pressing and emotionally draining realities faced by thousands of families across Northern Ireland. Autism does not affect only the individual child; it affects entire families, particularly parents and siblings. Every aspect of daily life is impacted on. In truth, many of those families feel abandoned by the system and let down.

The motion refers to waiting lists, respite pressures and transition failures. Those are not abstract policy terms: behind every one of those phrases is a family. I have had occasion to ask the Education Minister about a case in which, mere months out from starting school, a child with severe autism remained undiagnosed, their parents at their wits' end about what to do about the situation. Thankfully, after it was raised in the House, the case started to move at pace. However, how many other cases never even come to the Minister's attention?

One parent described to me what life was like raising an autistic child. They said that being an autism parent means existing in a constant state of fight or flight, always having to be 10 steps ahead, always looking for danger, always being on guard and never fully relaxing or switching off. They made the point that autism affects siblings too, which is, all too often, ignored in debates such as this. They spoke about children who have never really had what most people would call a "normal" childhood, because so much of family life revolves around keeping siblings safe. Holidays are not really holidays. Days out become military operations. Simple things that most families take for granted become impossible, yet we are told that, in many cases, those siblings never complain. That burden is largely unseen.

The pack before Members today repeatedly acknowledges the failure of current services. The motion refers to:

The Department's material effectively confirms that criticism. The SEN reform agenda repeatedly mentions the need for "pathways of opportunity" to move into adulthood for young people with SEN at post-16 and post-19. It calls for a transitional support programme. It acknowledges the need for work between Education, Health and Economy to create proper adult pathways. The fact that those proposals are necessary tells us something important. It tells us that the current system is not working, and nowhere is that clearer than in what happens after the age of 19. That is why I tabled today's amendment. In England, there exists a statutory framework through education, health and care plans that extends to the age of 25; Northern Ireland has no equivalent legislative safety net. Here, many families effectively fall off a cliff after 19.

Ministerial answers on the issue acknowledge that there is ongoing work simply to develop and pilot regional transition protocols. However, we are told that funding is still being sought for full implementation. Why is that? I remind the House that, because of Barnett consequentials, with any scheme funded in England, Northern Ireland receives the funding necessary to run a similar scheme here; in fact, for every £1 spent on such a scheme in the south of England, the Executive get £1·24. I therefore ask this: where has the money for those schemes gone? What do the Executive believe to be more important? When I ask such questions of the Finance Minister, I am told that Barnett consequentials are unhypothecated and that the Executive collectively decide how they are allocated. What does that mean for the man and woman and the family out there? It means that the Executive got money to run a similar scheme to the GB one and gets it on an ongoing basis but decided to do something else with it. That is shameful. It is a disgrace.

One parent told me that they are already gearing up for the fight over summer support provision, because their child does not attend a special school. Think about that. That parent is not enjoying family life or planning for a summer holiday; they are preparing for battle with the system.

There is another uncomfortable truth that everyone in the House must confront. Increasingly, families who can afford to do so are being forced to go private. One parent said that they have to travel to Dublin for occupational therapy and Tomatis therapy because the support is either unavailable or was refused in Northern Ireland. That should shame us all, and the problem is not getting any smaller. In a recent answer to a question from Ms Hunter, the Minister of Health said that demand for autism assessment and support has grown significantly across Northern Ireland in recent years. The Department's strategy states:

That is true, but there should be at least a minimum guarantee that families will not be abandoned. There should be a guarantee that the transition to adulthood is planned rather than chaotic. There should be guarantees that siblings and carers are recognised, that support does not simply evaporate at the age of 19 and that parents are not forced to bankrupt themselves travelling to pay for basic therapies privately.

The reality is that many parents of autistic children feel exhausted, isolated and unheard. The Assembly cannot solve every problem overnight, but it can at least acknowledge the reality that those parents face. We can begin by admitting that Northern Ireland is behind where it should be in providing structured, legally protected, post-19 support for autistic young people and those with special educational needs. We can acknowledge that the Executive have received money for a system of support but are simply not providing it. That is what supporting the amendment means. I will be asking exactly on what the money that should be being devoted to supporting those children and their families is being spent. I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr McGuigan: I thank the Members who tabled the motion and the amendment. The motion is important, because it reflects the experiences of, and gives a voice to, the many autistic people and their families across the North who are struggling to access support and the services that they need. The recent findings of the Independent Autism Reviewer's first annual report highlight a number of serious and ongoing issues with autism services, and those issues are deeply concerning. I record my thanks to Ema Cubitt and her team for producing the report and for shining an important light on the conversation that we are having today. The report confirms what families, carers and autistic people have been telling us for many years. It shows that services are inconsistent across different areas, that waiting times are too long and that many families are finding it difficult to access the support that they need at the right time.

One of the clearest concerns that the report raises is the pressure on respite and short-break services. For many families, respite care is essential, as it provides support for parents and carers, gives children and young people opportunities to engage in activities and helps prevent families from reaching crisis point. Access to those services varies significantly, however, and depends on where people live. Families should not receive different levels of support simply because they live in a different health trust.

The report also highlights the impact that long waiting times for autism assessments have on children, young people and adults. Many families wait years for an assessment, and, during that time, children can struggle in school, while parents can struggle to access support. As a result, their mental health can worsen. Early identification and intervention are important, and delays not only affect outcomes for autistic people but can place additional pressure on schools, health services and families.

Another issue raised in the report is the lack of consistency in the services that are available across the North. In some areas, families can access therapies, family support and early intervention programmes, relatively quickly, but in other areas, those same supports are extremely limited or, in some cases, unavailable. There needs to be greater consistency so that autistic people and their families can expect a fair standard of support, regardless of where they live.

The report also draws attention to the difficulties that many autistic young people face when moving from children's services into adulthood. We will be supporting the amendment, which reflects that. Too often, support reduces significantly when a young person leaves school or reaches adulthood. Families frequently describe that transition as being confusing and stressful, with little coordination between services. There is a clear need for better planning across Departments dealing with health, education, further education, employment and communities to ensure that autistic young people are properly supported as they move into adult life.

The autism strategy and the Autism Act already provide an important framework for improving services, but we need to move beyond frameworks. The key issue now has to be delivery. The motion asks the Minister to outline how the commitments within the strategy and Autism Act will be implemented during the remainder of the Assembly mandate, and how services will continue to improve in the years ahead. We need to hear answers to those questions from the Minister. The answers should include clear timelines, better accountability, improved workforce planning and details of greater engagement with autistic people and their families and carers when services are being designed and reviewed.

It is also important that we recognise the increasing demand on autism services. As diagnosis rates continue to rise, services must be properly resourced and planned for the future. The motion is an opportunity to recognise the challenges that remain and to push for practical improvements that can make a real difference to people's lives. Ultimately, autistic people and their families want the same thing as everyone else: timely support; fair access to services; opportunities to reach their potential; and the ability to live independently and with dignity.

Mr Robinson: I, like others, very much welcome the opportunity to speak on this important motion. In the previous Assembly mandate, it was the DUP that brought forward the legislation that was designed to help speed up diagnosis, intervention and support for people with autism. The Autism Act and subsequent amendments were intended to ensure that autistic people in Northern Ireland could access improved services and support throughout their lives, not simply at one stage or another. The creation of the Independent Autism Reviewer was also a direct result of that legislation.

The report, which was published earlier this year, makes for concerning reading. It effectively says that families are still being left to piece services together themselves. It identifies weaknesses, including inconsistent reporting, poor data collection, gaps in accountability and a postcode lottery for the services that are available. It also, rightly, notes the absence of a joined-up transition pathway for autistic young people moving into adulthood. We thank our Assembly colleague Mr Gaston for tabling the amendment. It is an issue that many Members will recognise from their constituency casework, with parents telling us, repeatedly, that support falls away once a child leaves school. Young people who may have had some structure and support suddenly find themselves trying to navigate adult services that are difficult to access and, in some cases, simply non-existent.

Northern Ireland did not begin diagnosing autism in any significant way until the late 1990s. As a result, we have many adults seeking a diagnosis later in life, after being entirely missed as children. At the same time, we have growing numbers of young children entering adulthood who need ongoing support. Despite that growing demand, the services have not kept pace. Last year, in response to an Assembly question for written answer from my colleague Diane Dodds, the Minister confirmed that more than 4,000 adults were waiting for an autism assessment across our health trusts.

Some of those adults wait years for diagnosis, and, because of the unacceptable waiting times, many people feel that they have no option but to pay privately, often at enormous financial cost to them and their families. Even then, many of those people encounter further barriers when trying to access NHS support or medication following a private diagnosis. Adults are left in limbo: diagnosed but with no treatment pathway, no mental health support and no follow-up care.

Autistic adults face challenges, particularly around mental health and employment. Autism NI has highlighted figures that show that autistic adults are significantly more likely to experience severe mental health challenges. Ed Austin, the strategic planning and performance group (SPPG) autism lead, said that, while the prevalence rate of autism amongst adults in Northern Ireland is around 1·9%, there is substantial over-representation in mental health services, crisis intervention settings and psychiatric care. We cannot continue treating autism and mental health as entirely separate issues. They are clearly interconnected, and the services out there must truly reflect that. That is why Autism NI's calls for a specialist autism mental health service need to be actioned. Mental health professionals must be trained in autism, and people must be able to access support before they reach that crisis point.

Autistic adults also face a stark employment gap. Autistic people have enormous talent, ability and potential, yet, despite many wanting to work, only three in 10 adults are currently in full-time employment. Barriers such as inaccessible recruitment processes, lack of workplace understanding and inadequate support continue to lock too many people out of employment and prevent them gaining the independence that they so richly deserve.

I place on record my appreciation of the work of organisations such as Autism NI, which has been pushing for a special mental health service for autism. Its adult autism support service is important and welcome, but those charities cannot and should not be expected to do it alone. What is available in parts of Northern Ireland should not depend on geography or charitable capacity. We need regional adult autism services that provide support, both before and after diagnosis.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Alan.

Mr Robinson: Of course, we all recognise the budgetary pressures facing the Executive and the Department, but early intervention and effective support prevent more serious crises —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Alan.

Mr Robinson: — developing later and reduce pressure elsewhere.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Much appreciated. Thank you.

Mr Chambers: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate, because autism services represent one of the clearest tests of whether our health and social care system is genuinely capable of delivering person-centred, responsive and compassionate support to those who rely on it the most.

At present, however, far too many autistic people and their families feel that the system is still not working for them in the way that it should. For many families, the greatest frustration is not simply the existence of waiting lists, serious though those waiting lists undoubtedly are. Rather, the greatest frustration is the exhaustion that comes from battling fragmented systems, repeatedly telling their story to different agencies, navigating postcode lotteries in service provision and being told repeatedly that support is coming somewhere further down the line. We need to be honest about the consequences of those delays. Delayed diagnosis does not simply create an administrative backlog in the system; it impacts on mental health, educational attainment, family stability and wider life opportunities, leaving many autistic people feeling unsupported at precisely the point when early intervention could make the greatest difference. The evidence clearly demonstrates that, when support is delayed or inaccessible, pressures simply emerge elsewhere in the system, often in much more acute and costly ways.

I want to praise Ema Cubitt for the work that she has undertaken in her role as Independent Autism Reviewer. Her reports have highlighted the very real pressures facing autistic people and their families. Even when her findings are difficult for the Executive or the wider system to hear, they help focus attention on areas where improvement is urgently needed. I believe that her contribution has strengthened the wider conversation around autism services considerably. I also welcome the fact that work is progressing through the autism strategy 2023-28 and the associated delivery plans, because important reforms are under way that, if implemented properly, have the potential to improve consistency in access across Northern Ireland.

The recognition that support should not always depend on securing a formal diagnosis is also sensible because, too often, families feel trapped in a bureaucratic race for diagnosis simply to unlock access to basic support services. That is neither efficient nor compassionate. The growing emphasis on neurodiversity awareness and staff training in front-line services is also a positive step in the right direction because, sadly, too many autistic people still report poor experiences when interacting with health services or mental health settings that are simply not designed with neurodivergence needs in mind.

However, we also need realism and honesty in the debate, because the Assembly cannot continue to demand expanded autism services, expanded ADHD provision, reduced waiting lists, enhanced respite care and fully staffed multidisciplinary teams while refusing to acknowledge the scale of the financial and workforce pressures facing the wider system. There also needs to be honesty around the growing reliance on private assessments, because increasing numbers of families are now paying privately simply because they cannot tolerate waiting years for assessment in the public system. That raises serious questions about equality of access, because speed of diagnosis and support should never depend upon a family's ability to pay.

Behind every figure on a waiting list is a child struggling at school, a parent approaching breaking point or an adult trying to navigate a society that, too often, still fails to properly understand them. They deserve the very best system that we can give them. Hopefully, improvements will continue to come in the time ahead.

Mr McGrath: Of course, there are debates in the Chamber where statistics are the things that matter. Then there are debates like this one, where what we are talking about is a matter of exhaustion for families. In our communities there are people who are living with, or caring for family members with, autism and are trying to hold things together whilst waiting lists grow longer, support becomes harder to access, responsibility is pushed from Department to Department and, at times, it really feels as though nobody is actually being held accountable. The motion talks about "fit-for-purpose services". For far too many families across Northern Ireland, the services are nowhere near being fit for purpose. Parents are absolutely fighting for assessments, children are waiting years and years for support, young people are reaching adulthood only to discover that the structures around them simply melt away, and carers, siblings and families are carrying pressures that government often fails to see.

One area where this place has found consensus in recent years is on the need to see better autism services. That has involved the establishment of the office of the Independent Autism Reviewer. The appointment of Ema Cubitt, who is here today, has been incredibly positive. In her work, the Independent Autism Reviewer has highlighted the major pressures in respite provision, long waiting times, postcode inequality and the absence of proper transition pathways for young autistic people. She has supported the ongoing work by many in the voluntary and community sector who have worked diligently for years, including those who support the all-party group on autism. The findings that are there and that are being discovered should worry us, because autism is not a niche issue. As the reviewer would say:

The autism strategy itself acknowledges that autism is becoming even more prevalent in our society and that there is no one-size-fits-all approach, yet families are too often forced into a one-size-fits-none system.

Whilst I welcome the amendment, and it is not disagreeable, it is a little bit surprising, because its proposer and his TUV colleagues spend more time calling for this place to be collapsed than not, and, if that were successful, it would mean that autism services would be handed over to Ministers in London. I do not believe that Ministers in London would really understand the issues that are relevant to people in South Down or other constituencies here, so it is good that we have a local Minister here and an Executive, whom we can hold to account, to make sure that the delivery of those services is bespoke to the needs that we have in our communities.

The Department's autism strategy sets out clear commitments around early intervention, educational inclusion, workplace support, housing support and inclusive communities. The SEN reform agenda talks about providing:

They are all great, wonderful words, but families do not live inside strategies: they live inside a reality, and the reality is that many still cannot access the timely assessments. Many feel abandoned during transitions, and many still encounter entirely different levels of support, depending on where they live. That postcode lottery is entirely unacceptable.

In South Down, we are fortunate to have incredible organisations, schools, community groups and advocates, who are doing remarkable work. People go above and beyond, every day. Parents support other parents. Voluntary groups step in where statutory services fail. Teachers and classroom assistants try to create inclusive environments with limited resources. However, many of those groups spend half their time searching for funding just to be able to survive. The system that our Executive oversee relies far too heavily on goodwill. Those families need consistency, certainty and services that are built around dignity rather than desperation.

We have the motion, as presented to us, and the amendment. The SDLP is happy to support both, but, further to the conversation here today, let us hope that we see action from the Department for those who need it.

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

Ms Flynn: I am also happy to speak to the motion. I am conscious that a lot of the debate, so far, has focused on the many shortcomings that we see in autism services, but it is important to recognise also that there have been some really positive steps in recent years. Almost every Member who has spoken has mentioned the appointment of the Independent Autism Reviewer. That was a significant development for us locally. The autism strategy 2023-28 has set out an ambitious vision around inclusion, partnership and the improvement of outcomes across health, education, employment and community life. We have also seen progress through the autism and neurodiversity training in our health and social care trusts, alongside the growing recognition of the need for more neuroaffirming approaches across our public services. That is particularly important as it was all co-designed with people who have lived experience. Not so long ago, those things were not even being spoken about, and now we are considering a neuroaffirming approach across our public services. That will make a big, big difference. We have to welcome all that good work. Those are important, big steps forward.

Obviously, the concern that many families still have is that the progress that we see at a policy level is not always translating into progress in people's daily lives. We know that, for many autistic people and their families, the reality remains one of delay and inconsistency. Nowhere is that more apparent than in the assessment waiting times and the impact that those delays have on the mental health and well-being not just of the individuals — the children, young people and adults who are awaiting assessment — but of their wider families. It has an emotional impact on the broader family circle. When families wait for years for assessment or support, life does not simply pause in the meantime.

I am sure that every MLA has regular contact in their offices with cases of children — many in nursery; some in primary and post-primary school — where their parents know and can see that the child is struggling and not coping well. However, then they have to navigate the whole system of getting their assessments carried out via the health trusts and, then, via the schools. It is really disappointing to see the cases of the kids trying to get their assessments at school and even at nursery level, because we need to intervene as early as possible to try to support our children with autism. The majority of families that I deal with have been knocked back from having an assessment carried out and a support package put in place, regardless of the severity of their child's need. When they get knocked back, most parents do not have the motivation or the energy at times to go through the appeals process, and they do not know how to navigate the whole tribunal system. People do not have the energy, and unless they are supported properly, many families do not go through with the appeals process and the tribunal process. Those are all missed opportunities right across the system, not just in health.

We are letting our autistic children and young people down. The long waits, when they do not receive assessments on time or the support that they need, lead to additional anxiety, emotional distress, low self-esteem and a feeling that they are being left behind by systems that should be in place to support them. Sadly, at the moment, that is the case for a large number of children and young people.

For many autistic people, those challenges are further compounded by the lack of core care for mental health conditions. Autistic people are more likely to experience anxiety, depression and emotional distress, yet, too often, they encounter mental health services that are not designed with autism in mind. Families frequently speak about being passed between services, with autism being viewed separately from mental health, when, in reality, the two are often deeply interconnected. However, we do not connect them when we try to deal with people and families.

We all recognise that, in this day and age, parents and families should not have to fight so hard simply to be heard and to receive the coordinated support that they desperately need. We need accountability from the Department of Health and across all Departments. We have debated the issue many times, and it cuts across many Departments, particularly Health and Education. Hopefully, the motion today will bring some positive work towards that.

Ms Brownlee: We support the motion and the amendment. It is great to see a debate on autism in the Assembly again. I hate using the word "debate", as it is never a debate, because we are all in agreement, and we are all passionate about the topic.

I welcome this week's publication of the delivery plan for the autism strategy. Any renewed focus on autism services is to be welcomed, but, once again, we are presented with a strategy that lacks the qualitative targets and clear, measurable outcomes that we need. Without those, families and autistic individuals will continue to ask the same questions: how will we know that things are improving and how do we know that what we are doing is helping? As legislators, we need to understand, as baseline data, that when we support projects or look at strategies, what we agree collectively is working for people on the ground.

One of the recurring themes in the debate is collaboration. We continue to see fragmented services, poor data sharing and families being pushed from one service to the other with little coordination or continuity of care. Constituents repeatedly tell us that they feel lost in a system that operates in silos.

One of the biggest barriers is access to health. While autism and neurodiversity awareness training has been rolled out across the health and social care trusts, we were told in January that only 365 staff had completed the training. Any training is welcome, and we should be proud that it has been delivered, but we need to ask whether it is being sufficiently targeted, whether it is effective and how it is monitored to make sure that we are delivering the right training at the right time and that it is making the biggest impact. We need to know: is the training being tailored to address the mental health needs of autistic individuals; how are professionals being equipped to make the reasonable adjustments that are needed in practice to ensure that there are no further barriers to accessing health; and how are interventions being adapted to ensure that autistic people can access and remain engaged with the support that they so need?

Our all-party group had previously raised the proposal of autism champions, and, through a question for written answer, we had a great response from the Minister, who said that he would look at it further and scope it out from a number of jurisdictions to see what could be done. It would be great if the Minister could give an update on that.

One of the greatest failures in the space remains respite provision. Many families will remember the 'I Am Not Okay' documentary, which exposed the raw reality faced by parents and carers supporting children and adults with the highest support needs. It is not an isolated story. Only this week, I spoke to a 72-year-old mother caring for her 52-year-old autistic daughter with learning difficulties. She is begging for respite support, as she cannot get the help that she needs. It breaks my heart that, in 2026, elderly parents are carrying unimaginable caring responsibilities alone because the system is failing them.

That is the daily reality for families across Northern Ireland.

Parents are fighting for a few hours' support each week simply to be able to breathe. That is not sustainable care. More and more carers are reaching breaking point while trying to access the most basic help. Let us be honest: families do not want another Zoom workshop or awareness session; they want practical support, respite and space to recharge so that they can continue to care for their loved ones safely and compassionately. Too often, unpaid carers fill the gaps left by statutory services, with serious consequences for their own mental health and well-being as they try to continue in their caring role.

There is another forgotten voice in the conversation: the siblings. Those children and young people witness the stress and chaos in their home every day. Many grow up before their time, having to step back from their own needs because of the level of care that is required for their brother or sister.

During the previous mandate, our colleague Pam Cameron, working with Autism NI, introduced legislation that aimed to improve diagnosis, intervention and support for autistic people in Northern Ireland. The Autism (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 and the role of the Independent Autism Reviewer are critical. They were such important steps forward, but the Autism Reviewer's recent report lays bare the scale of the challenge that remains. We know that waiting lists are unacceptable, with many families forced to pursue a private diagnosis. There should be no postcode lottery, and a person's earnings or economic status should not determine the level of care that their child gets.

We also cannot ignore the devastating impact on people's mental health. Autistic adults are significantly over-represented. Access to specialist care is not optional but essential.

As we discuss this today, we must remember that every statistic represents a person — an adult, a child, a parent, a sibling or a carer — who is trying to navigate a system that too often fails them. Autistic individuals have enormous strengths, and they contribute greatly to our society, our communities and our workplaces. They deserve so much better.

Mrs Guy: I will focus on autism services for children and young people, particularly those in the education system. Before I do so, I will begin by saying that there is still huge misunderstanding in society and even, at times, in the Chamber of autism and autistic people. Every person is an individual, and autistic people are no different. They have different needs, abilities and outlooks. Some require additional support, while others do not. There are autistic people in every walk of life. They are surgeons, judges, police officers and, indeed, MLAs. Providing the right services should not be viewed as a burden or an add-on. It is about making essential adjustments so that autistic people can thrive.

I will touch on some of the challenges in the education system for autistic children and young people and their families, but I also want to highlight the opportunity that we have if we get this right. Thankfully, there is greater awareness of autism across our education system. That has come from years of advocacy by families and organisations. Many schools are making real efforts to support autistic pupils, and such changes often benefit every child in the classroom. Despite that progress, however, services and support have not improved significantly. In some cases, particularly over the past year, they have deteriorated.

One of the clearest examples of that deterioration is the experience that many families face when their child approaches adulthood. Too often, parents describe a cliff edge of support post 19. Pathways become unclear; protections fall away; and families are left to battle multiple systems simply to secure basic continuity of care, education or support. That is why I am happy to support the amendment, which highlights the lack of equivalent legal protections and structured pathways for young people here compared with those in England, where support can be provided up until the age of 25.

Importantly, the amendment also recognises something that families repeatedly tell us, which is that such failures do not impact on the autistic person alone. They impact on entire families, including parents, siblings and carers, who are left carrying enormous emotional and practical pressures, often with inadequate respite or transition support. I also welcome the fact that the proposer of the amendment has recognised that those gaps affect not only autistic young people but many others with additional needs across our system. Many of us in the Chamber are familiar with the tireless advocacy of Alma White. Caleb's Cause has helped shine a light on the trauma of navigating post-19 services.

The Autism Reviewer's annual report highlights serious concerns. One of the most fundamental barriers is simply not having a school place. As I stand here today, hundreds of children with SEND, including many with autism, still do not have a confirmed place for September. That has become far too common, and it is unacceptable. Even when a child has a place, it is often not suitable for their needs. That is not a criticism of our schools: many of them are doing everything that they can but simply do not have the resources or the facilities required.

The consequences are clear: anxiety, school refusal, behavioural challenges and disengagement. Even when schools seek additional help, too often that support is not there. The introduction of local impact teams has not delivered what was hoped for, largely because of staff shortages. Without proper investment, we will simply see longer waiting lists and growing unmet need.

Then, of course, there is the issue of transition, which is where the amendment strengthens the motion. For many families, the transition to adulthood is not experienced in a supported and structured way; rather, families simply have to fight to establish what support exists for their young person after school.

Alongside the challenges, however, there are real opportunities. When we get support right, the outcomes are transformative. I recently visited Beechlawn School in Hillsborough, where many of the pupils are autistic, often with additional needs. Many had previously struggled to deal with anxiety or disengagement, but now the children in that school are thriving. They are happy, confident and achieving incredible things. The staff are ambitious for them, and it shows, from award-winning creative work to enterprise achievements. That is what is possible when the right support is in place.

It is not about burden but about opportunity. Investing in services for autistic children and young people in school, ensuring that they do not fall off a cliff edge as they move into adulthood will result in individuals who are able to reach their potential and families who are supported to live full and meaningful lives.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Members who tabled the motion for highlighting the ongoing and deeply concerning issues surrounding autism services in Northern Ireland. As a member of the all-party group on autism and sponsor of the Autism (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, I am profoundly frustrated that, despite repeated commitments, strategies and two pieces of legislation, so many autistic people and their families continue to be failed by the systems that are supposed to support them.

In my work across my constituency, I hear regularly from parents and autistic adults about the barriers that they face daily when accessing basic services and appropriate supports. Far too many families are being left to fight for support in a system that is fragmented, under-resourced and regionally inconsistent across Northern Ireland. One of the clearest examples of systemic failure is the current waiting times for autism assessments. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance states that autism assessment pathways should be completed within 13 weeks, yet, in some health trust areas, families wait for up to five years to simply receive a diagnosis. That represents five years without clarity, five years without access to appropriate interventions and five years of avoidable stress and anxiety for children, parents and adults.

Early diagnosis and intervention are evidence-based approaches that improve educational outcomes, mental health outcomes and long-term independence. Delayed diagnosis often results in needs escalating to crisis point, placing even greater pressure on health, education and social care services further down the line. In other words, the failure to intervene early is not only damaging for families but economically short-sighted.

In education, autistic children continue to be failed in the classroom environment. Many parents report that their child is either not receiving the support that is needed or is being placed on a reduced timetable because the school does not have the capacity or resources to meet need. Even more concerning is the increasing number of autistic children who are now being described as experiencing "school can't" — children who are unable to attend school because the educational environment has become overwhelming, unsupported or unsuitable for them.

Families are also deeply worried about what happens when their child reaches adulthood. Too many parents describe a cliff edge in support once a young person leaves school. There remains a lack of meaningful pathways into further education, employment, independent living and community participation for autistic adults. The employment figures alone should act as a wake-up call. Across the UK, only 22% of autistic adults are in employment, which is one of the lowest employment rates of any disability group. Many autistic people have enormous skills, talents and potential that are being overlooked because workplaces are not adapting recruitment practices or providing appropriate support. That is why we in government must move beyond simply recognising the problem and begin implementing measurable actions. We need targeted employment strategies, supported apprenticeships, autism-friendly recruitment practices and greater partnership among government, employers and the community sector to create sustainable employment opportunities.

I welcome the fact that the Health Minister is here to respond to the debate. I welcome the publication of the latest delivery plan, but I remain concerned by the continuing absence of clear, measurable and time-bound targets. That has been a persistent weakness of previous strategies and action plans. Without quantifiable targets, transparent reporting mechanisms and departmental accountability, it becomes impossible to properly assess whether progress is being made. Aspirational language alone will not reduce waiting lists, improve school supports or increase employment opportunities. If the strategy is to succeed, Departments must be held accountable for outcomes, not simply intentions. That means setting measurable targets for outcomes on diagnosis, waiting times, educational support provision and transitions into adulthood and employment, alongside regular public reporting on progress.

Under the provisions of the Autism (Amendment) Act 2022, Ema Cubitt was appointed in 2024 as the first Independent Autism Reviewer for Northern Ireland, and we absolutely welcome that. The role is the first of its kind across the United Kingdom and Ireland, and we should be rightly proud of it. However, Ema Cubitt has, on several occasions, highlighted the significant challenges associated with carrying out her responsibilities effectively, particularly because of insufficient resources, inadequate data —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Pam.

Mrs Cameron: Thank you.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Sorry about that.

I call Robbie Butler [Interruption.]

Mr McCrossan: That was bad timing.

Mr Butler: Yes, that was bad timing, but I will draw an analogy from the SDLP Member's coming in on this side of the House: it validates what Cheryl Brownlee said about the debate being not really a debate but a consensus. I was not going to speak on the motion, but it is rare that we have an Alliance motion to which the TUV has tabled an amendment and we are all agreeing. What a moment. If I were the parent of a child with profound autism, I might get a wee bit excited about that and would probably think that things were going to change overnight. Unfortunately, as we know, the wheels of change turn slowly here.

I pay tribute to those who work in the space of autism support, whether they are in the medical profession, the teaching profession or the community and voluntary sector, because they have held back the wave of pressure that parents and young people have faced when, many times, a system that was not really designed for them has left them high and dry. In our constituency offices, we have sat with parents who have literally been tearing their hair out because they did not know what the pathway looked like from early diagnosis to interventions and, crucially, into the long term.

I have had the privilege of serving on the all-party group on autism. I was also on the Committee for Education at a critical moment. We need to learn from the mistakes of the past. There was a review of the Education Authority (EA). Members may remember that, between 2018 and 2020, there was a horrendously long tail of undiagnosed autism, and parents were fighting tooth and nail to get diagnoses. It was not just the system, however; it was a cultural attitude towards autism.

We need to be guarded. Last year, in the Chamber, I talked about some of the utterances that had been made. Yes, they were from the USA, across the pond. President Trump and, I think, RFK Junior were literally calling into question whether autism was a real thing and suggesting that there was overdiagnosis and medication of it. If we are not guarded, we could allow the culture to shift here. It could become a blame culture — blaming parents — when, in fact, we have report after report of failings. We have inherited some of those failings, but, if we do not change the tone and the intent, we will become facilitators of them. I acknowledge the legislation that came through and the appointment of the Autism Reviewer. The review and the report have been very useful in bringing a focus.

I do not think that anybody will disagree with my next point, but the amendment points to it a little bit. In this situation — I am going to use the word "consensus" — if we had the Education Minister, the Economy Minister and, possibly, TEO here to understand the complexity of this arrangement, we might achieve consensus. A child born with autism will have autism when they die. What does that mean? When we talk about giving every child the best start in life, what do we want to do next? We want to give that child the best educational experience that they can have. What do we want to do then? We want to give them the best opportunities post-19. Unfortunately, however, we are a wee bit disjointed and fragmented. That is what true cross-departmental work would look like.

I say this to those parents and young people: do not give up hope. Keep the pressure on us. We get paid to bring about change and to see the Executive working in a collegial way, rather than being brought to the brink on items that are political but do not affect people's lives. There are priorities to which we should put our shoulder to show people that we value them and that this is a place that cares about all of them.

We will be moving into an election phase shortly, guys. I am sure that every party will be looking at its manifesto. I urge each of the Members and all the parties represented here to consider the fact that we have taken one small step with the Autism Act and the Autism Reviewer, but we need to move into post-19 provision. A parent or family of a child with autism, who understand that that child is going to need support, should have an Executive, an Assembly and even an Opposition who will say, "We're going to provide and develop a pathway right through, so that you will have the comfort of knowing that your child is going to grow into adulthood with the best opportunities possible". I thank the proposers of the motion and the amendment for the opportunity to speak on the issue today.

Mr Durkan: Daniel, the cameras are facing over here now; you might want to come back. [Laughter.]

This week, my office has again been inundated with the perennial calls from parents of children with autism and additional needs who have not secured a SEN placement at secondary school for September. Some are angry, some are exhausted, and many have simply become resigned to a system that continuously lets their children down. For far too many families, raising a child with autism in the North means one battle after another, including battles for education, assessments, health services, respite care, and the most basic support to which their children are entitled.

That is not to say that some progress has not been made. Sunday marked 15 years since the passage of the Autism Act here, which was led by the SDLP's Dominic Bradley. We have seen subsequent legislation, strategies and action plans. Too often, however, that work has not been matched by adequate funding, urgency or political will. Families today are still fighting the same battles. Autistic people and their families are still not experiencing consistent, reliable or joined-up support. That is not simply my view; it is the clear finding of the Independent Autism Reviewer's first annual report. The reality facing many of those families is grim. Currently, 17,000 children here are waiting for an autism assessment. We have heard that 4,000 adults are waiting as well. We know that many children are waiting for three years and more for that assessment, during which time families are left in limbo, schools are struggling to cope and, most importantly, children are being left behind. Parents are exhausted by a system that forces them into those never-ending battles simply to secure support.

The Independent Autism Reviewer laid bare what families, Autism NI and others have been saying for years: services are inconsistent, fragmented and incredibly difficult to navigate. Families are left trying to piece together support themselves because the system around them simply does not join up. That is not about a lack of policy; it is a failure in implementation. Nowhere is that failure felt more sharply than in the transition from childhood to adult services. Caleb's cause has highlighted very powerfully the struggle that is faced by young people who lose vital support services upon turning 19. Once again, Northern Ireland is falling behind provision that is available in other jurisdictions.

Autistic young people and their families are not experiencing joined-up government. They are experiencing collective buck-passing. There is still no fully coordinated regional transition pathway in place, and respite services have been described as fragile. I will go so far as to say that, in many areas, they have been all but decimated. We know that there is a postcode lottery in support, depending on where a child lives. We know that there are major gaps in post-diagnostic support, and we know that demand for autism and ADHD services is lengthy and growing across every trust. The pressure on families is enormous. Children are missing school because adequate support is not there. Parents and carers are reducing their hours or are leaving employment altogether simply to cope. The system is broken, and, in turn, it is breaking the people who rely on it.

There also remains far too little clarity around who is responsible for delivery, how progress is measured and whether these strategies are, in effect, improving the quality of life for people on the ground. Families do not need another strategy that ticks all the right boxes but fails in practice. They need timely assessments, proper respite provision, coordinated transition services and equal access to support, regardless of postcode. Most of all, autistic people and their families deserve dignity, consistency and a system that works with them and for them rather than against them. The Health Minister must now show real leadership, drive genuine cross-departmental accountability and ensure that the commitments already made through the autism legislation —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Mark.

Mr Durkan: — and through the autism strategy are finally delivered.

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

Minister, you can see that there is not 15 minutes left for you to respond before we break. As you are all aware, the Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm. Therefore, by leave of the Assembly, I propose to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The Minister will respond to the motion after Question Time.

Mr Speaker: Question 12 has been withdrawn.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): As the Member will be aware, before taking a firearm appeal decision, it is necessary for the senior officer to consider whether the appellant is a fit person to be entrusted with a firearm, without danger to public safety or to the peace, and that they have good reason to possess each firearm or ammunition applied for.

To ensure that the senior officer can make a fully informed decision, appropriate checks and due diligence are conducted through the appeals process. Appeals may be held in abeyance of the appellant's request. The Department may seek supplementary information or the appellant may request further time to respond to correspondence from officials. Consideration to expedite an appeal can be give to appellants who demonstrate that their livelihood has been or may be affected by the loss of their firearms.

Mr K Buchanan: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. I am aware of an individual who has had an appeal with the Department since 9 February 2024. On 22 March 2024, 50 appeals predated that individual's case. On 23 September 2025, that number was 10. That meant that 40 appeals were carried out in 18 months. Irrespective of that individual, what is the issue with the delay, more broadly? Getting the appeals through your Department seems to be a very slow process. Why is that?

Mrs Long: The first issue is that the number of appeals that the Department receives annually does vary. It is between 40 and 70 in an average year, but we have seen over 100 in some years. In 2025, the number was particularly low. There were only 22 appeals, which may explain why the backlog started to clear, and 14 of those are being progressed. In 2026 so far, nine appeals have been decided and brought to conclusion by a senior officer, and the branch has received 11 appeals to date.

It is a small team in the branch that processes appeals. Whilst we recently added an additional senior officer to progress appeals, it is challenging because the firearms team has other statutory responsibilities under the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004, including the firearms consultation process, engaging with stakeholders and the Justice Committee, and for the consultation responses that are being gathered.

The PSNI's firearms and explosives branch is also a small team. It has to supply the information required in an appeal to the Department, and both teams are subject to staff changes on occasion. Officials also have to respond to any queries or subject access requests made by appellants or their representatives for information in respect of appeals, and that takes them away from processing appeals. They try to do that in a timely manner. For comparison: in January 2025, there were 71 live appeals; in July, there were 65; and currently, there are only 47.

Ms Sheerin: Like my constituency colleague, I am often lobbied by people who are experiencing delays with appeals and in their initial application for a firearm. In light of that, does the Minister agree that the proposed 153% increase in the fee for firearms licensing is extreme, given those pressures and the time that it takes to acquire a licence, and that farming and rural communities are already under significant pressure, particularly given the increase in the cost of fuel and fertiliser, and the other costs that they have to meet?

Mrs Long: There are two separate issues. The PSNI's firearms and explosives branch is the licensing authority in Northern Ireland, and it processes applications on behalf of the Chief Constable. The licensing service has to be appropriately funded for the PSNI to be able to safeguard the public. At the moment, it is not a full cost-recovery model, with the result that, last year, around £2 million was taken from wider PSNI resources to subsidise the firearms branch. That is not a sustainable position, given the limited revenue that the PSNI has with which to deliver front-line policing. Ultimately, having a firearm is a responsibility that comes with a cost. For example, appeals are completely unfunded. We have not consulted on charging for appeals, but they can cost anything from £2,000 to £4,000 for my officers to process, yet no cost is attached to them. No jeopardy is involved for people, which incentivises them to submit appeals.

I am therefore aware of the concerns that people have about the increase in cost, but I remind them that, when we spend money to subsidise firearms licence applications, we are taking that money away from front-line policing services.

Mr Dickson: Thank you very much, Minister, for setting out the issues with cost, not only of appeals but of firearms licences. You are absolutely right that it is necessary that we have full cost recovery. Otherwise, we are simply taking the money away from other front-line services or out of the taxpayer's pocket. Do you therefore agree that it is important that the PSNI get full cost recovery from firearms licensing?

Mrs Long: The reason that I have consulted on firearms is that the PSNI raised the issue with me when it was looking at its budget. As I said, £2 million went on subsidising applications for firearms last year, yet the police were unable to sign off on pay for police officers because there was a deficit of around £5 million in the PSNI's budget. One can therefore see how that £2 million is pretty critical for front-line policing and for development. At the moment, fees do not cover administrative and operational costs. The fees were last increased in 2016, when the cost of a certificate for a period of five years rose from £50 to £98. The current proposals would see the cost of a firearm certificate increase to £250.

To be clear, we have not consulted on any charge being imposed for firearms appeals. That would require primary legislation, and that is something that we may have to look at introducing in the future. Ultimately, if we were saying this in a context in which people, for the purposes of their job or sport, needed equipment, they would generally be expected to fund it themselves or seek a grant in order to do so. At the moment, the cost of firearms appeals comes out of the public purse.

A Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) report on firearms licensing referred in particular to the Department of Finance's document 'Managing Public Money Northern Ireland', in which, as the NIAO report states:

We are working towards that.

The consultation is open, however. We want to hear from people in rural communities and from those who participate in sports shooting. We want to hear their views, which we will consider when reaching a conclusion.

Mr Stewart: I am sure that other Members have concerns about the extortionate rise in the licensing charges that are coming in. Minister, you will be aware that many of our brave members of the security forces, both current and former, carry personal protection weapons (PPWs). They do so because of a perceived or real threat to their life. Should they be considered for an exemption from licensing charges, given the threats upon them and the requirement to carry PPWs?

Mrs Long: First and foremost, I would prefer that nobody had to carry a personal protection weapon, because we want to be in a very different situation. I put that on the record.

As to any exemptions and how those are handled, I again say that there is a consultation under way, and I encourage the Member to contribute to it. Members who contribute to the consultation should, however, perhaps also reflect on from where in the policing budget they want the £2 million to come instead. At the moment, that money comes directly from front-line policing in neighbourhoods, from antiterrorism policing and from other things. Neither the Department of Justice not the PSNI is getting the kind of resource that would allow us to continue to absorb those costs.

I feel that the response is proportionate, given that there has not been an increase in firearms licensing fees for so long and given that it is a considerable expense to own a firearm, buy ammunition and have a cabinet in which the firearm can be safely and securely locked away. It is not a cheap endeavour for anybody involved, so paying for the certificate is only fair. It has to be said as well that the fee is paid once every five years. Yes, it is an increase, but if it is spread across five years, it amounts to £50 a year, which, I think, represents quite good value for money.

I therefore encourage the Member to respond to the consultation. We will consider all the issues that have been raised, but we do have to look at how we are going to pay for firearms licensing, because subsidising it out of the public purse is not working for the police or the Department.

Mrs Long: The Bill is focused on a small number of very significant measures that will have the most impact on victims and witnesses of crime in order to improve their experience of the criminal justice system. That is a priority for me and something that, I know, partner organisations are also keen to progress.

The provisions, which will make a real difference to victims, include a right of victims in serious sexual offence cases to make representations at specified pretrial application hearings, with the benefit of independent legal representation to do so, and improvements to the third-party material disclosure process. Victims of hate crime offences will automatically be eligible for special measures, and the accused will be prohibited from cross-examining them.

Officials are working with the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) to support the drafting of the Bill, which I plan to introduce before the summer recess, subject, of course, to Executive and Assembly approval.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for the update. Minister, you will be aware of significant public discussion about the use of good-character references. Will you confirm whether the Bill could deliver legislative change on that issue?

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for raising the issue. I recognise how distressing it is for victims to listen to good-character references for a perpetrator who has harmed them and to feel that those references could influence the outcome of the trial or of sentencing, given that character references can play a part in both. My preference would be to end or to limit the use of good-character references in certain categories of offending, particularly domestic abuse and sexual crime.

Legally complex issues are involved, so careful policy development and consultation are required to ensure that any resultant legislation is compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), including the article 6 rights of the defendant. I have therefore made the issue part of the Department's review of sentencing policy with a view to legislating in the next mandate. However, if a simple legislative change that could have an impact in this space were to be identified, I would not rule out using the victims and witnesses of crime Bill as a potential vehicle for it.

Above all, I encourage everyone to exercise personal responsibility when it comes to providing character references for use by a court, particularly in cases of domestic abuse and sexual offending, where the creation of a good character in the public eye is often part of the offending profile.

Ms Ferguson: Minister, you will be aware that, from January 2021 to December 2025, 175 road traffic collisions involving e-scooters, e-bikes and scramblers resulted in 200 injuries, 51 of which were serious, and, sadly, three fatalities. Given that the Justice Department has legislative responsibility for PSNI enforcement powers, such as the power to seize vehicles that are being driven recklessly, does the Minister intend to amend a current Bill or include provision in a forthcoming Bill to ensure that such vehicles can be taken from perpetrators and destroyed —

Mr Speaker: OK.

Ms Ferguson: — before the number of fatalities increases?

Mr Speaker: I am not sure about the relevance of that to the question. Minister, I leave it in your hands.

Mrs Long: It does not play into the victims and witnesses of crime Bill. When it comes to the wider legislative programme, however, we are still bottoming out the issue. I have invited the Chief Constable and the Infrastructure Minister to a meeting so that we can determine whether there are gaps in legislation, because it remains unclear to me that there are such gaps. For example, it is already illegal for someone to be in control of a vehicle if they are underage; it is illegal to ride that vehicle on the pavement; and it is illegal to ride it without insurance, MOT certificate and other safeguards. Those are matters of enforcement, and there are complexities around that. Indeed, as some Members will have seen today, innovative work is being done by the Ministry of Defence (MOD) on technology that can force the electric motors of e-bikes to switch off so that the police can seize the bikes.

I will have the meeting to look at whether there are gaps, and, if there are, we will be happy to close them. As with everything else, there is limited time left in the mandate, and we cannot simply legislate willy-nilly without going through the due process of consultation and other things. I am convinced that an area of this falls to parental responsibility. Many of the young people who drive the scooters are under 13 or 14 years old, and they certainly do not buy them out of their pocket money, so some adult responsibility has to be taken for their conduct.

Mr O'Toole: Victims and witnesses of crime want their trials to happen. At the minute, lots of trials cannot happen because of the strike. Weeks ago, you received the independent accelerated review, which you talked up, but you do not seem to have taken action to finally bring the strike to an end.

When will it be possible to assure victims and witnesses of crime that their trials can go forward? At the minute, it seems like a crisis that you cannot or will not solve.

Mrs Long: The Member has, as always, started from the position of assuming that I am in the wrong. It is always helpful for me to have the opportunity to correct that notion.

The truth of the matter is that there is nothing to stop the criminal Bar coming back to work at any time. That is the first thing. The criminal Bar remaining outside will not influence the outcome of the accelerated review or the outcome of my deliberations on the report of that review. The report arrived with me on 24 or 27 April — I will check the date — and is now with my officials, so that they can provide advice. I anticipate getting that advice in the next few days and will make quick decisions on a way forward. I will meet the Bar, as my officials have, and the solicitors' criminal Bar.

The accelerated review came up with proposals, but I cannot guarantee that, if I were to implement those proposals in full, they would be acceptable to the solicitors' criminal Bar or to the criminal Bar. Previous demands that they made were met in full, and that did not result in a return to work; in fact, it resulted in an escalation of the action. Only the criminal Bar can control whether or not it returns to court. I urge it to do so, because the Member is, of course, absolutely correct on the fundamental point about the impact on victims and witnesses.

Mrs Long: I have not had any formal engagement with parents on that matter recently. However, I can confirm that senior officials from my Department have previously met concerned parents to discuss the issue. I can also confirm that, as the management of individuals convicted of sexual offences who live in the community is primarily an operational matter, the coordinator of the public protection arrangements Northern Ireland (PPANI) routinely engages with parents and other concerned stakeholders, as do representatives of the PPANI statutory agencies. Those agencies know where convicted sex offenders are housed and work collaboratively to share information and to manage any risks that are posed. The PSNI generally leads on the management of offenders who are subject to notification under requirements in the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which is more generally referred to as the "sex offenders register".

I encourage any parents who are concerned about specific cases in their community to contact the police. As Justice Minister, I am open to discussion on any matters of public protection. I am mindful of the need to ensure that risk management, particularly in safeguarding children, is reflected appropriately in the statutory framework. My Department is commencing a review of public protection arrangements that will look at that matter among others.

Ms Hunter: The issue comes to my office almost weekly. Recently, I spoke with a mother: she has five young children and lives in a cul-de-sac, and three sex offenders live in her area. What steps will your Department or others connected to it take to ensure that a community has given consent before a registered sex offender is housed in it?

Mrs Long: The Member asks a question to which there is no answer. Unfortunately, no one is in a position to consent to who else will live in their neighbourhood. Bear in mind that there will be sex offenders living in every neighbourhood who have never been convicted or discovered but are living in those communities. The issue is how we manage registered sex offenders in the community and ensure that families and young people are cognisant of the risks from sex offenders and able to report any concerning behaviour directly to the police as it happens.

Automatic disclosure could lead to members of the public being wrongly identified as sex offenders. It is a significant risk, particularly given that inaccurate or untrue information can spread on social media. Vigilante action, which, as we have seen, is on the rise, can drive people, including registered sex offenders, from their homes. That makes it harder for those people to be managed safely in the community and for the risks attendant on them to be managed.

It is important to have a proportionate approach to disclosure in order to ensure that people are safe, and child safeguarding has to be a priority. The police and other agencies proactively disclose information about offenders to members of the public where it is necessary to do so to keep children safe from harm. Additionally, the child protection disclosure scheme allows individuals to apply for information about offenders. That information will be disclosed where it is necessary. I know of significant examples where the PSNI has gone the extra mile, such as to notify a separated partner that their other half is living and consorting with someone who is a sex offender, when they have part custody of their children.

The system is not infallible, but it works well, is proportionate and, at the same time, creates no false sense of assurance in areas where there are no registered sex offenders that there are no sex offenders in those neighbourhoods.

Ms Egan: How does PPANI manage sex offenders?

Mrs Long: First, from our perspective, it is about ensuring that the PSNI, the Probation Board, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and others are able to come together to manage sexual and violent offenders who create a risk of serious harm. They take into account a range of factors when assessing the suitability of accommodation for each relevant offender being managed under PPANI. That includes whether there are children or vulnerable adults living at or frequently visiting the address, whether the accommodation is in immediate proximity to the victim or to child-centred locations and whether there are concerns about association with other offenders in the area.

As I said, the PSNI deals with those who are subject to notification requirements, and that means that the police have to receive notification of certain personal details, including the address. It also manages those who have civil prevention orders, such as sexual offences prevention orders, to manage risk from sexual harm. Conditions can include residing only at an address that is approved by the police or prohibiting the individual from going to certain places — for example, schools and play parks. The PSNI also manages individuals who are subject to statutory supervision in the community; for example, if they are on licence. The suitability of addresses for each offender living in the community is assessed on a case-by-case basis, considering all relevant factors. Under PPANI, risk management plans, tailored to the specific circumstances, are put in place to try to minimise and manage the risk that they pose. There is a designated risk manager — either a police officer, a probation officer or a social worker — who is responsible for ensuring that a management plan is developed for the offender and implemented.

Mr Buckley: Minister, there is deep fear and anger about the housing of sexual offenders in local communities. That is not a new issue; it has always been of paramount concern. Despite the processes that you set out, quite often the reality does not match those processes, given that parents have seen sex offenders housed near schools, childcare facilities and public parks.

Mr Speaker: Is there a question?

Mr Buckley: They have a lack of confidence in the system. Can the Minister therefore give a cast-iron guarantee that the review that she announced today will ensure that child safety is the first priority, rather than offenders' convenience?

Mrs Long: Child safety and child protection are at the very core of everything that PPANI does. Ensuring that there is proper safeguarding in place is the priority. The focus on the management of offenders is with a view to keeping people safe, not keeping offenders safe, though that is, of course, part of our responsibility in a civilised society.

I agree with the Member: parents are worried when they know that a known convicted sex offender is living in their neighbourhood. We have, however, also seen very worrying examples where people who have no criminal record whatsoever and no reason to believe that they should have one are hounded from their homes due to rumours and gossip that are spread on social media. We want to guard against that. There has to be a balance. There will be people living in our community who have never reached the threshold for reporting to the police and who have never been reported on or had concerns raised about them but who are, nevertheless, a danger to children. We need to ensure that parents are alert to that fact, notwithstanding that, where we know that there is a risk, we are willing to work with parents to mitigate it.

When it comes to housing, the majority of the housing issues will be dealt with by the Probation Board in conjunction with the Housing Executive and DFC, because they have primary responsibility for providing accommodation in the community.

Mrs Long: The Police Service of Northern Ireland and Police Service of Northern Ireland Reserve (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006 set out the requirements of the PSNI injury on duty award scheme. My officials are engaged with their colleagues in the Northern Ireland Policing Board and the PSNI to consider what administrative functions, legislative amendments and other changes may be required to the police injury on duty award scheme to ensure that it is proportionate and sustainable for current and future applicants. That work includes consideration of making suitable legislative amendments; where roles, responsibilities, resources and functions appropriately sit; and what structural and administrative changes may be required in each organisation. Any changes to the operation of the injury on duty award scheme must be agreed by the organisations involved. Legislative amendments will be required before any transfer or changes to the injury on duty award scheme can be implemented.

Mr Beattie: I thank the Minister for her comprehensive answer. The 'Joint Guidance for Medical Practitioners on Injury on Duty Awards' was placed on a statutory footing in 2024, which means that it is legally binding. However, the first page states:

Therefore, the document is not being adhered to. Can the Minister use the tripartite arrangements to deal with that very small issue, because it has a huge effect on those who seek an award?

Mrs Long: First, it is now on a statutory footing, and that overrides the content of the document. However, to be clear, the Northern Ireland Policing Board officials are reviewing the current medical guidance document with a view to updating it, and we look forward to the 'Version 2 — September 2016' advice being updated in the near future.

Ms Finnegan: The Minister has acknowledged the rationale for the administration of the injury on duty awards and ill-health retirement schemes to transfer from the Policing Board to the PSNI. Does the Minister have a timescale for the introduction of the necessary legislative amendments to carry out that work?

Mrs Long: The issue is about which organisation is the employer and therefore should carry forward the scheme. Frankly, the issue of which has primary responsibility is a matter for the Policing Board to resolve with the PSNI. Until there is agreement on that, there is no point in our preparing legislation with respect to what else might need to be done. The ongoing review is wider than that; it also looks at what needs to be done more generally to make the scheme sustainable and to ensure that whichever organisation ends up taking it forward remains ready to take on those responsibilities. Once it is agreed, we will look at a potential legislative vehicle that will allow us to make good progress.

Mr Clarke: Minister, in your previous response, you talked about where the responsibility best sits. Given the tripartite arrangement, you will be aware that the other two partners believe that it is currently in the wrong place. Would it not be better for you and your officials to sit down with the other partners in the tripartite arrangement to resolve the issue and fix the debacle around the ill-health retirement scheme?

Mrs Long: My officials have sat down and sit down regularly with the other two partners, but, whilst people are not happy with where it sits now, there is no formal agreement about where it should lie. To be clear, there are those who wish to move it to the Department, but that would not be appropriate, given that the Department has no employment role with the PSNI and it is ultimately an employment benefit scheme. There is also, I think, the assumption that, if it moved to the Department, it would offload a lot of the pressure and cost that goes along with the scheme, but it would not, because along with the transfer of functions will be the transfer of finance, and that is clear. We need to bottom out exactly what the arrangements should be. My officials have already sat down at the regular tripartite meetings, and the issue emerges from time to time. However, once there is a consensus on where it should lie, we will take forward the required legislation to bring the discussion to an end. In the interim, there are responsibilities set out in legislation that simply need to be adhered to.

Mrs Long: The policy content for the Justice Bill was agreed by the Executive in July 2024, and the policy content for the Sentencing Bill was agreed in December 2024. The responses to a joint DOJ and Department for Communities public consultation on antisocial behaviour legislation, including drinking in public, were published in April 2025 and suggested a need for legislative reform. Policy work on that issue is ongoing, and, as I previously noted, it is the intention to bring forward legislation on the matter in the next Assembly mandate. It is a cross-cutting issue, so my Department continues to work with the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Department for Communities to ensure that any legislation is fit for purpose. That is particularly important as the powers in the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 have not been commenced as they proved to be unworkable. My Department has also committed to conducting an equality impact assessment on the issue, and work on that is in its preliminary stages.

Mr Martin: I thank the Minister for her answer. Minister, you will be aware that, in recent weeks, there has been significant antisocial behaviour in Bangor. Police officers have flagged to me that, in certain cases, they lack powers relating to the search for and seizure of alcohol. You referenced your Department's consultation, which concluded:

If the issue is a priority for the police — I feel that it needs to be, especially for my constituents — I ask, again, why it has not been addressed since the Assembly was restored.

Mrs Long: I made clear that approval for the content of the Bills preceded the publication of the report to which the Member refers. It is hard for me to anticipate what will happen in the future and make provision on the basis of a recommendation that has not been made. To be fair, it would have been difficult for me to have included something in December that was not published until the following April.

There is legislation that contains powers around drinking in public, so it is not the case that people can do nothing. However, there is a question mark over whether alcohol can be seized, and it is the power of seizure that most people focus on. There are public by-laws and broader pieces of public order legislation that allow councils to prohibit drinking in designated places. Consuming alcohol in those areas is an offence. Police can take the offenders' names and addresses, and the prosecutions can be taken forward by councils. They can also address alcohol-related public disorder via penalty notices for disorder, as provided for by the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2011. In addition, the Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Act 1997 gives the police the power to require those under 18 to surrender any alcohol in public, with refusal to do so constituting an offence. There are, therefore, some powers.

The issue is the seizure of alcohol from adults. That is something that we want to see introduced, but it will require additional policy work. It is not a piece of work for just my Department. We are working in collaboration with the Department for Communities and other statutory partners to ensure that we are able to introduce such powers appropriately.

Mr Speaker: We move now to topical questions.

Mrs Long: I have read the executive summary: I confess that I have not yet read the full report. There are a number of things that I would reflect on. First, it is important that the NIO looks carefully at the governance arrangements because, ultimately, the ICRIR is a beast of its creation, and it is important that it ensures the implementation of the report's recommendations.

What draws my eye, I confess, is the fact that, even though it is funded by annually managed expenditure, which, as the Member will know, is much more flexible than departmental expenditure limit resource budgets, it has been a struggle for the ICRIR to manage its caseload within the boundaries of its finances. That speaks to a long-standing problem in the Department of Justice: we have had to absorb the costs of legacy since the beginning. The PSNI estimates the cost of legacy litigation alone to be £100 million. We cannot continue to absorb those costs without proper and adequate funding from the Northern Ireland Office. One piece of learning from the report will be that the new dispensation that we enter into under the new legacy Bill that is going through Parliament will need to be adequately funded. If it is not, it will run aground and let down the people who are using it as a means of getting truth and justice.

Mr McGlone: Absolutely, Minister. For many of us, it was a bit odd to see that the body had gone through, I think, three finance officers since its inception. In the review report, some of the descriptions of the culture include "toxic", "silo working", "divided" and "disrespectful". Minister, you touched on the responsibilities of the Secretary of State. Will you be communicating those to the Secretary of State, or arranging a meeting with him, as Minister of Justice, to articulate the concerns that you have clearly shared with us today?

Mrs Long: It is clear that the ICRIR sits outside the remit of the Department of Justice. It has a memorandum of understanding with a number of our arm's-length public bodies for the delivery of disclosure and services to them, but it is not within my remit. I had no part in the setting up of the previous legacy arrangements — in fact, my Department and I raised considerable concerns about those arrangements. It is not within my vires as Minister to raise those issues with the Secretary of State. The Member can rest assured, however, that I will still raise them with the Secretary of State, albeit not as Minister of Justice.

Mrs Long: First, I thank the Member, who, along with her constituency colleagues, brought Kathryn and Aaron McCollum to meet me and my officials last week. Ian McCollum's case was most horrific, not just because of the loss of life but because of the circumstances in which it happened. I am relieved, for their sake, that a full trial did not have to proceed and that they were not subjected to further delay. I cannot help but be disappointed that an earlier guilty plea, which could have relieved them of a wait of four and a half years, was not forthcoming, but such is the system within which we work.

On the Criminal Bar Association strike, I have asked my officials to assess the recommendations and provide advice to me as a matter of urgency. I am waiting for that process to be completed, and I hope that it will ultimately result in an immediate return to service. As I said when I met the McCollum family, however, I believe that the CBA ought to return to service now. As Minister, I ought not to be in a position in which I feel as though I am negotiating with a gun to my head, but that is essentially what is happening. I am fearful of the attrition of victims and witnesses through the processes. I am concerned about the impact on their mental health, given the length of time that they are having to wait, and about the impact on our wider justice system, where backlogs build up and there are not the financial reserves to address them. That is doing damage to the justice system, and I argue that it is also doing damage to the credibility of the criminal Bar. I urge those people to go back to work. I urge them to come back around the table with me so that we can resolve the issues in a fair way, based on the evidence that the accelerated review has presented.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Minister for her answer and, indeed, for the time that she gave so generously last week when she met the family. Does she agree that it should not be necessary for an MLA to make representations to the Public Prosecution Service (PPS), to her as Justice Minister and, indeed, to the Criminal Bar Association in order to see appropriate attention given to a case as traumatic and serious as the one in question? Will the Minister give me an assurance that she will do all in her power to ensure that the case comes to a conclusion on 29 June, before the summer recess?

Mrs Long: First and foremost, I agree. It is completely unwarranted that people are being re-traumatised as a result of their feeling the need to come to me, any other elected representative, the PPS or the CBA to recount their trauma and seek a derogation. I do not believe that any victim, any witness or, indeed, any person should have to go through that. It is not an ethical situation. I am glad that the case has been resolved, and I hope that that brings some comfort to the family.

When it comes to how expeditiously I will try to resolve the matter with the Bar, I have never dragged my heels on the issues. When I got the report from the Burgess review, I implemented it in good faith and backdated it to the point at which I made the decision, not just to the point at which I announced it. On each occasion on which the criminal Bar has raised issues with me, I have tried to act in good faith. I have to say that that has not been reciprocated, because one of the conditions for undertaking the accelerated review was that the Bar would play no further part in deciding which cases got a derogation, but it did not hold up its end of the bargain. In order to ensure that victims and witnesses were not negatively affected, I allowed the accelerated review to proceed in spite of that, and I will continue to do everything that I can to ensure that justice is available to every victim and every person in the court system without their having to go cap in hand to anyone to ask for it. I also reinforce what I said earlier, which is that there is nothing to prevent the Bar going back to work today.

Mrs Long: Dr Melia has agreed to coordinate and chair an implementation group to oversee the delivery of her 16 recommendations. That will bring invaluable continuity to ensuring that they are implemented. I am grateful to Jan for her ongoing commitment and support. The Department is in contact with her and will provide whatever support she needs as she takes forward the implementation phase.

I have also shared a copy of the report with my Executive colleagues in advance of Dr Melia convening the implementation group. I anticipate that cross-Executive support will be forthcoming, not least in the context of ending violence against women and girls. I have also raised the issue with the Agriculture Minister, in respect of the equine industry, and the Health Minister, in respect of safeguarding and, particularly, child social services, as I believe that there is work that we can do jointly to chase up those issues.

Last week, during the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) meeting and at the intergovernmental agreement meeting on justice with the Irish Government, I raised the issue with them because, of course, as we will all be conscious of, the equine industry acts on an all-island basis and Katie lived with her abuser for part of the time that was reviewed in the report when he was on the other side of the border, in Lifford. Therefore, it is important that they understand the consequences of the report and work with us to ensure that it is implemented fully.

Miss McAllister: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. It is really important that there has been progress on a number of the recommendations. One that I have previously highlighted in the Chamber relates to police misconduct. I know that the Minister is making good progress on legislative changes around that. Does she agree with allowing the Police Ombudsman to fast-track cases where there is incontrovertible evidence of criminality or gross misconduct that will result in an officer being dismissed? The Minister has spoken in the Chamber about cases that have taken years to progress.

Mrs Long: I am very supportive of an amendment that would allow the Police Ombudsman to submit an early report where it is clear that the officer concerned has committed gross misconduct to allow that person to be dismissed. It would allow the PSNI access to the information that is required to commence and conclude disciplinary proceedings as long as it would not prejudice any ongoing criminal case. Of course, it would have to liaise with the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) about that.

Such an amendment would require primary legislative change. Obviously, given our reduced mandate, we have not been able to progress that, but we are making changes to regulations that cover the code of conduct and vetting and barring issues. The Chamber will see more of that in the weeks ahead. It is my intention to do that as early as possible. Given the legislative burden that we carry, the Department would probably need to wait until the next mandate to do it. However, should any Member wish to amend legislation to accelerate that process, I would be more than happy to engage with them in support of it, because people must be held accountable and there must be consequences for such actions.

Mrs Long: First of all, the public are not being asked to pay for it in my consultation. We are asking the people who want to hold a firearm to pay for their own licensing arrangements on a cost-recovery basis — to pay what it costs. The reason for the £2 million deficit to which you refer is not the inefficiency of the office but the fact that we do not charge enough for the service. Therefore, of course, there is a deficiency in income.

When it comes to the efficiency of the service, however, PSNI's strategic transformation team has taken forward work on how it can speed up the firearms licensing process to provide a more efficient and effective service. That does not, however, change the fact that it will still cost significantly more than people currently pay for that service in exactly the same way in which the Department's firearms branch, which deals with appeals, currently has to subsidise those in their entirety.

Mr T Buchanan: Thank you. Minister, some years ago, when firearms licensing went online, we were told that it would resolve the problems and make the service more effective, efficient and streamlined, free up personnel and resolve the backlog issues. What has gone wrong?

Mrs Long: Firearms licensing is an operational matter for the PSNI. The PSNI has asked me to consult on increasing fees, but the PSNI strategic transformation team, in its work, is looking at all of those issues, including how the portal works and how effective it is. I am sure that the Member agrees with me that, ultimately, you want people to be thoroughly vetted and checked before they are given a firearms licence. You want to know that that person can be trusted with a firearm, does not have a record of violence, has not been involved in criminality, and so on and so forth. A degree of checking needs to be done. A cost is also incurred, because, very often, it will require doctors' reports and other such evidence to be gathered. That can take time. If you write to a local GP and ask them to disclose medical records, you have to pay for that service. It also takes time, because the NHS — I am sure that the Health Minister, who is sitting and listening, would agree — is under extraordinary pressure and this is possibly not its highest priority right now.

All of those factors add to the delay. I want to ensure that resourcing is not an excuse for any delay and that we are not subsidising firearms licensing from the wider policing budget, which is there to protect the public and ensure that we are all safe. If we can do firearms licensing and, indeed, the bit that we are responsible for in the Department — appeals— more effectively and efficiently, of course, we will.

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

Mr Speaker: I call Mike Nesbitt, the Minister, to respond.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you to all the Members who have contributed in the debate. I absolutely agree: we need to ensure that all those seeking autism services have access to the right type of service at the right time. I am fully committed to the full implementation of the Autism Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, as amended. Indeed, many of the issues that are being debated today are a focus for the Department of Health. Work is actively ongoing to try to address many of those challenges. However, I must also emphasise that all Departments need to work together to address the issues faced by people with autism. We have a growing prevalence of autism in our society. That places a responsibility on all Departments and public bodies to ensure that we are equipped and informed in our understanding of autism and in the delivery of the appropriate services. We need to strive to ensure that engagement enables autistic people, and their families and carers, to feel supported and to live fulfilling lives. That is the ethos of the autism strategy, which was published alongside the first delivery plan in December 2023. The strategy also focuses on the implementation and requirements of the Autism Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, as amended.

I recognise the very real challenges facing autistic people and those who support them. I completely agree with the findings of the Independent Autism Reviewer's first annual report: more must be done. We must recognise and address the fact that, while activity is evident, reliable delivery is not as evident. As on many issues, I want to push for standardised regional services that do away with postcode lotteries. As Members have mentioned, autism is part of daily life, and, indeed, it is part of daily life for members of my family.

The motion seeks clarity across a number of areas and Departments, so I will respond to each in turn, starting with transitions. Transition from children's to adult services remains a recognised area of challenge, not least for young people with a diagnosis of autism. Practical improvements are under way. A regional transition protocol for children and young people with a learning disability, including children and young people with co-occurring autism, has been developed. Subject to the availability of funding, departmental officials will facilitate a pilot of that protocol to support full regional implementation. Children's and adult learning disability services across the health trusts remain committed to enhancing that transition process.

In parallel, last month, the Department held a phase 1 workshop on transition pathways between child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) and adult mental health services. The focus was on exploring low-cost or no-cost improvements that can realistically be implemented within the current service constraints. The workshop aimed to develop a shared understanding of the current arrangements, including transitions from neurodevelopmental pathways, such as ASD and ADHD, and to lay the groundwork for co-developing a regional CAMHS to adult mental health services transitions pathway. I am on record as being committed to reviewing the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 and all appropriate legislation during the first year of implementation of the three-year service delivery plan for the learning disability service model. I want to determine whether there is a need for legislative change — I believe that there is — that better reflects today's needs and modern models of support for people with lifelong complex needs. The exact timeline for reviewing the legislation should be determined when both the learning disability service model and the service delivery programme are finalised. The review will require cross-departmental work involving not only Health but Education, Economy and Communities. A working group will be established to determine the terms of reference, scope and time frame for that review.

I am aware of significant delays in accessing autism assessments. That is driving some to seek a private diagnosis. There remains a demand/capacity gap, and, consequently, we have long waiting lists. Work is under way to standardise the diagnostic pathway across all trusts while better meeting needs at an early pre-diagnosis stage. Trusts are working to manage demand and to use their existing resources as effectively and efficiently as possible. However, all Members will be aware of the significant funding challenges that I face, which mean making some very difficult decisions in respect of managing the resources that we have.

The autism strategy acknowledges that the challenges faced by autistic people are cross-cutting and require coordinated action across services and Departments to address those needs. My Department will continue to work with HSC organisations and Executive colleagues to strengthen pathways and improve coordination of support for young people with complex needs for the remainder of the mandate and, hopefully, beyond.

A key priority in the autism strategy is improving regional pathways of care. In support of that, my Department consulted on the children and young people's emotional health and well-being framework. The framework proposes an inclusive, needs-based approach to neurodiversity that does not require a formal diagnosis as a prerequisite for support. The model aims to reduce stigma, promote earlier intervention and improve outcomes across health, education and developmental domains. My Department continues to consider consultation responses and is working with colleagues in the Public Health Agency and child health to define the requirements that will underpin the pathway and inform future commissioning.

To strengthen the focus on adult autism pathways, a dedicated project lead for adult autism was appointed in February 2025. Since taking up post, they have worked with trusts to map current diagnostic and support pathways, and they have convened a series of workshops to explore ways to optimise existing delivery and improve consistency within existing resources. Building on recommendations from the 2023 review of adult autism services, work is now ongoing to update the adult autism care pathway that was originally developed by the HSC regional autism spectrum disorder network. The review aims to deliver greater consistency in diagnostic and support services across trusts, aligned with NICE guidelines and reflective of differing levels of need.

With regard to mental health, I make it clear that an autism assessment should not be required to access services to receive treatment. It is acknowledged that, often, interactions with general mental health services are more difficult than they should be for autistic people. The mental health strategy recognises that there are barriers currently preventing that client group and other marginalised groups from accessing mental health services and support. It is therefore actively seeking to reduce barriers and to implement a no-wrong-door approach, ensuring that staff are appropriately trained to identify and address the specific needs of marginalised or at-risk groups and that services can be flexible and meet individual needs at the point of contact. It is important that mental health services are fully equipped to identify the specific needs of individuals and address them appropriately, whether through engagement with support services such as social work teams, speech and language therapy or interpreting services; onward referral to specialist services or interventions, if required; or the employment of innovative solutions, such as digital mental health interventions.

Training is key to ensuring that appropriate adjustments are made for each autistic person. Health and Social Care staff have access to a range of training modules, and work is being developed by my Department, in partnership with the Middletown Centre for Autism, which is an internationally recognised autism centre of excellence. The new modules cover autistic differences, providing supportive environments and promoting a neuro-affirming culture. The training has been co-produced with service users, and over 40% of the training includes neurodivergent people describing their lived experience. The training provides high-quality foundational knowledge to help staff to understand and implement reasonable adjustments. Additional specialist training for staff working in the area of mental health is being developed in partnership with Middletown.

For autistic people with co-occurring learning disability, specialist services are provided and continue to reflect a strong evidential and professional basis. That is not to say that it is a perfect system. I am aware that specialist learning disability mental health inpatient services are significantly stretched, and there is an urgent need to develop a more robust community mental health system to prevent hospital admissions.

The strategy aims to meet the requirements of our unique autism legislation, setting Northern Ireland apart from and, in some ways, ahead of many countries to ensure that public services understand the needs of autistic people and provide the right level and type of services.

While considerable progress has already been made on the key actions in the mental health strategy, alongside the delivery of a range of other actions, they are being progressed with minimal budget, which I have repeatedly highlighted to Executive colleagues since taking up post. The funding plan, which was published alongside the mental health strategy in June 2021, identified a requirement of an additional £1·2 billion over the lifetime of the strategy to fully deliver all 35 actions.

As many of you are aware, the autism strategy was developed and is being taken forward in a period of exceptionally constrained financial circumstances for all Departments. While there is a continued commitment to the implementation of the actions, that has necessitated a creative and innovative approach. The autism strategy sets out to deliver actions across health, education, housing and public services generally, including the Civil Service. Work is ongoing across Departments and public bodies, and progress is assessed through annual monitoring reports. The second progress report for 2024-25 is available on the Department's website.

Work is also complete on the development of the delivery plan, which covers the remaining years of the strategy up to 2028. That is despite the challenge of long waiting lists, gaps in services and the constrained financial environment. The plan will remain a live document to enable the system to respond to emerging priorities.

One of the key issues is the inclusion of measurable targets to assess effectiveness, which Pam Cameron highlighted in her remarks. I acknowledge that she has been at this a lot longer than I have. In the first two years of the implementation of the strategy, feedback from key stakeholders, including the Autism Reviewer, indicated that more focus is needed in that area. To address that, and in keeping with legislative requirements, departmental officials have developed the next delivery plan using specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound (SMART) targets and measures of success.

Officials have also been working closely with Ema Cubitt on agreeing and finalising the delivery plan. Ema has provided some very helpful and constructive feedback on the plan, particularly in relation to SMART targets and measures of success. It was my honour to appoint Ema as our first Independent Autism Reviewer, just as it was my honour to be the first MLA to push for a mental health champion. Although I was unsuccessful at the time, I am delighted that Professor Siobhán O’Neill is now in place.

It is important to highlight that many of the actions in the delivery plan are outwith my responsibility, and, therefore, focus may be better directed elsewhere. However, in relation to Health responsibilities, I will highlight some actions that are included in the plan, such as the implementation of the children and young people's emotional health and well-being framework and the publication of a learning disability strategic plan. It also includes support for:

and the:

Each of those actions has a range of measurable quality assurance and impact indicators and timelines for completion, which will enable scrutiny against delivery.

Moving forward, that will also support stronger alignment between monitoring and delivery planning, thus improving the visibility of outcomes. It will also lay the foundation for the next autism strategy in 2028. If we genuinely want to realise vital improvements in our autism services in order to meet the needs of those with an autism diagnosis and, indeed, for the whole population, autism services need real and sustained funding additionality to ensure the full delivery of the strategy.

Several Members referred to the 'Spotlight' programme, 'I Am Not Okay' and to some of the mums. A few days ago, I had the pleasure of visiting the Redwood home, just down the hill on the Belmont Road, which has finally reopened, with its famous — or infamous — staircase having been reinstalled. Two of the children who featured in Tara Mills's excellent 'Spotlight' programme are now in place in Redwood, and it is anticipated that a third will have a space in Redwood before our summer recess. I am glad to note that at least some progress is being made in providing the right services and accommodation for those children.

I finish by encouraging all Members to support the efforts to achieve the outcome that, we all agree, we seek.

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

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much. Today, in the Chamber, we have all heard the warm words from Executive MLAs, which, I truly believe, will be much appreciated. However, the families who come to me want more than warm words in non-binding debates. They want to know what the Executive have deemed to be more important than using the money from the block grant to mirror the English model, which allows for SEN provision to the age of 25. They want to know what Northern Ireland's share of that money has been spent on.

MLAs must ensure that, when this debate ends, the fight for children with autism, their siblings and their parents continues. I want to know from the Executive and from the Finance Minister in particular how much in Barnett consequentials is being received by the Northern Ireland Executive from the expenditure in England on education, health and care plans and wider post-19 SEN provision. I want to know from the Finance Minister whether any ring-fenced allocation has ever been provided to the Department of Education or the Department of Health from Barnett consequentials linked to SEN or autism provision in England. I want to know from the Finance Minister whether the Executive have ever considered using Barnett consequentials arising from SEN expenditure in England to establish a Northern Ireland equivalent of the education, health and care plan. If any of the answers to those questions is a no, I simply ask this: why?

Politics is about priorities. What do the Executive deem to be more important than post-19 SEN provision? I ask the Education Minister this: has your Department ever conducted any assessment of the cost of introducing a statutory post-19 SEN support framework in Northern Ireland similar to that in England? I also want to know from the Education Minister what summer support provision is available for autistic children who do not attend special schools. I want to know from the Health Minister, from whom we have just heard, what respite provision is available for families of autistic children in each of the health and social care trusts? I want to know from our Health Minister what the average waiting time for an autism assessment is for children in each of the health and social care trusts. I also want to know from our Health Minister what assessment he has made of the impact of delayed autism diagnoses on educational placement outcomes.

Being a year out from an election and close to the end of a mandate is not a viable excuse.

There are basic steps that each Minister can take now to ensure that children with autism and their families at least get the money allocated in the block grant because of the investment in autism services in England.

On that note, Mr McGrath foolishly used part of his speech to describe the failure of Ministers to provide post-19 SEN support as some sort of delivery from the Executive. I remind him that he and his party are meant to be in opposition. If SDLP Members want to pick a fight with me, they can fill their boots, but they have completely missed the point on this, which is that, in England, there is provision until the age of 25 and we do not have that in Northern Ireland. On that basis, Mr McGrath, instead of Westminster not caring, as you stated, it is the Executive parties that do not care. That is what it is. Politics is all about priorities, and the Executive have decided that they know better what to spend the money on. Attacking the TUV points more towards nervousness in the SDLP about becoming a minority in opposition after the next election [Interruption.]

Politics is about priorities, and —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Gaston: — we can see what the Executive prioritise over special educational needs.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: When Members are on their feet, they are entitled to be heard.

I call Danny Donnelly to conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech on the motion. Danny, you have 10 minutes.

Mr Donnelly: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank all Members who have contributed to the debate. I will highlight some of the points that resonate with how far-reaching and important the issue is.

There has been a lot of agreement, which is good. I think that Robbie Butler suggested that the debate was not so much a debate as a consensus, and some key themes have shone through. Fragmented services came up time and time again, and the Independent Autism Reviewer strongly highlighted that in her report. Quite a few Members mentioned respite services, particularly in the context of the BBC documentary 'I Am Not Okay', which was first broadcast in September 2024. Shockingly, that is now more than 18 months ago. As we have just heard from the Minister, some of the mums now have respite services for their children. That took 18 months, however.

Miss McAllister: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr Donnelly: Yes. I will.

Miss McAllister: I know that some parents would want me to raise this issue, because they often ask MLAs about it. One reason that children are in longer-term residential care is the failure of respite care. A lot of parents do not see that as a positive; they see it as a failure of the state to intervene earlier that they need more help in the long term.

Mr Donnelly: Thank you. I agree absolutely that it is because of a failure to provide early intervention that those families have moved to a point of crisis at which they require that level of care.

Another theme that came up time and time again was the long waiting lists for diagnosis for adults and children. Thousands of adults who have realised that they may have autism are now on waiting lists to find out whether they do. Another glaring theme was the need for better mental health services for people with autism. Those issues are connected, and people with autism suffer a lot worse mental health conditions. There needs to be earlier intervention, and services need to be provided.

I will respond to a few of the issues that were raised. Timothy Gaston made a point about the Barnett consequentials that come here as a result of the services that are delivered in GB. He is right that Barnett consequentials come to Northern Ireland because of services provided there, but we need to look at the ever-growing health service budget and ask where those priorities have been. The Minister responded with some of the things that are being done in the health service, but, as we have seen from the Independent Autism Reviewer's report and have heard time and time again from families who come into our constituency offices, things are not OK. Services are not being delivered reliably, waiting lists for assessment and diagnosis are far too long, and people are being failed.

Many of the concerns that have been raised in today's debate have been consistently reflected to me during the work that I have been undertaking with the disability community as part of developing my private Member's Bill on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). I have heard about systems that are fragmented, inconsistent and too difficult to navigate and about the lived experience of poor accountability, inaccessible services, failures in transition planning, inadequate mental health support and the exhaustion of constantly having to fight for basic rights and adjustments.

I commend the work of the Independent Autism Reviewer, Ema Cubitt, who recently highlighted those fragmented services in her powerful first annual report. I encourage all Members to read it. What is striking about those experiences is that they are not isolated incidents: the same themes continue to emerge across health, education, transport, employment and community life. That needs to be addressed.

After discussion with members of the autism community today, I want to be clear: autistic people have always existed in our society. It is about being recognised and understood and having the ability to seek the support that they may previously have been denied or been unable to access. The responsibility now is to ensure that services reflect reality and are capable of providing the support that people need. I reiterate what my colleague Nuala said: if the Department is not clear about what post-diagnosis support should be provided, how can anyone else be expected to understand?

I thank the Member for proposing the amendment today. We support it.

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

Mr McGuigan: 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.

Philip, please open the debate on the motion.

Mr McGuigan: As my party's health spokesperson, I am continually discussing and debating in the Chamber issues of great importance to the people whom we represent. In health, there are so many such issues that, at times, it feels hard to prioritise them, but I can say without contradiction that the crisis in social care is one of the most important issues that the Health Minister must address, because of its impact on the whole health system and because it affects large number of families in every constituency across the North. It is not an exaggeration to state that for me, as an MLA, one of the most common and distressing issues raised in my office is the struggle that families face in trying to secure appropriate home care packages for their loved ones so that they can remain and live safely and independently in their own homes.

The motion rightly begins by recognising the essential role played by home care workers across the North. More than 30,000 people work across our wider social care sector, all of them carrying out demanding and often deeply personal work every day. They deserve our praise and our gratitude, but, obviously, care workers deserve more than my warm words and thanks: they deserve fair pay, decent conditions and recognition for the vital role that they play in sustaining our health and social care system. Those workers travel long distances in all weather, often under intense time pressure, to provide personal care and support to some of the most vulnerable people in our society. In many cases, they are the only regular social contact that a person has.

Colleagues will touch in greater detail on the impact that rising fuel prices are having, but the Minister will not be surprised to hear me once again demand that the very least that he does is implement the real living wage for our social care staff, fulfilling a promise that he made to that sector in January 2025. That is the right thing to do to show that we value the vital work that is carried out in that sector — mostly, it needs to be said, by women, which is another inequality. Not only would it send a signal that the work that those workers do is valued, but it would help the independent care sector, which continually tells us about the pressures that it faces in recruitment, retention and sustainability.

The North has an ageing population. That will not change; it will continue to be the case. Demand for home care is increasing year-on-year, and the level of need is becoming more complex. We need to get to grips with the situation. We need to plan for a future where more people live longer with frailty, dementia, disability and multiple long-term conditions. That plan needs to take on board the other realities that are happening at the same time. Care providers are dealing with rising costs, workforce shortages and growing difficulties in retaining experienced staff. Those pressures are felt particularly sharply in rural communities. In parts of my constituency of North Antrim, families are told repeatedly that no care package can be sourced because there are simply no carers available in their area. In places such as Armoy and surrounding rural areas, constituents who come to my office are regularly told that they live in what has effectively become a home care black spot. That is not sustainable, nor is it fair on patients or their families in North Antrim, including Armoy, or in any other rural part of the North.

Last week, we heard reports that providers may withdraw services from some rural areas because continuing to operate there is no longer financially viable. If we lose providers or provision in rural parts, that will make the existing problem much worse. That should concern all of us, because, when those services disappear, vulnerable people are left with few alternatives. Home care providers raise those concerns with me repeatedly. Independent providers deliver the majority of home care hours across the North, yet many warn that the current model is becoming financially unsustainable due to rising fuel costs, operational pressures and workforce challenges. Retention is an increasingly serious issue. Experienced care workers are leaving for sectors that offer similar pay for far less demanding work. To repeat: Minister, that is why you must fulfil the commitment to introduce the real living wage for social care workers.

We need to reflect carefully on the quality and dignity of the care provided. We in the Chamber know that many home care visits still last only 15 minutes. We have to ask ourselves whether meaningful, compassionate and person-centred care can realistically be delivered in such a short period, particularly for people with significant physical or cognitive needs.

Home care should not be a rushed, task-based exercise carried out against the clock. It should be about supporting people to live safely and with dignity in their own homes. The motion calls for meaningful engagement and co-production with providers, workers and service users. That is essential, and I want the Minister to respond, hopefully today, that he intends to engage directly and meaningfully with care providers to find solutions to the issues being identified.

I support the Minister as he tries to shift left, and I hope with all hope that that is successful. I hope that the new neighbourhood model will help that and allow for care to be provided in the most appropriate environment. However, on the issue of social care, the Minister needs to do more. He told me at the Health Committee that he knows not paying the real living wage and not resourcing social care are counter-strategic. Given the creaks in the health service and the importance of social care as a solution to those creaks, we can no longer make counter-strategic decisions. If we are serious about shifting care into the community, improving hospital flow and helping people to live independently for longer, we must be serious about building a sustainable and properly supported home care sector.

We know the wider consequences when suitable home care cannot be accessed. Patients who are medically fit for discharge remain stuck in hospital beds because no care package is available to support them at home. Figures continually show that, at any given time, around 600 patients across the North are fit for discharge but remain in hospital because appropriate care arrangements are not in place. That has a direct impact across the entire health system, on hospital flow, emergency departments, ambulance waiting times and cancelled procedures. The crisis in home care is contributing directly to the wider crisis in hospitals and emergency departments. Today, I met by chance representatives of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine (RCEM) to talk about its recent report on excess deaths caused by long delays at emergency departments. They were clear about the connection between pressures in social care and the dangerous conditions developing across our emergency departments. The major issues are hospital bed capacity and delayed discharge. They pointed out that even small improvements in social care provision and discharge capacity could have a significant impact on pressures in emergency departments. That is something that I hear in my many engagements with those who work across the healthcare sector.

If we all recognise that dealing with social care is a major problem, why can we not do more to solve it? Too often, the focus is placed solely on ambulance handovers or emergency department processes. While those issues obviously matter, they are symptoms rather than the problem. If there are no available hospital beds because patients cannot be discharged safely into the community, pressure builds throughout the system. That is why home care cannot continue to be treated as separate from healthcare planning. It is a central part of how our hospitals function.

I am conscious that when talking about problems and crisis solutions, it is vital that we do not lose focus on the real issues, which are patient outcomes and supporting families. That means people such as the elderly lady from Ballymena who, after spending time in hospital, wanted to return home. Three weeks later, she is still waiting for a care package. Her daughter has to decide whether she will give up her full-time work to provide the care that is needed: to manage medication, as well as moving, handling and nutrition, without the necessary training, respite or adequate support. These issues are impacting on that mother and daughter, and on families like that across the North. Families are being pushed to breaking point because the support that they need is simply not there.

Those are not isolated cases. Similar situations arise repeatedly across constituencies. Families are exhausted. Many are trying to balance employment, childcare and other caring responsibilities with little or no support. Home care has to be one of the foundations on which the entire system depends, so I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the motion and bring forward a comprehensive action plan that delivers long-term stability for the sector, better support for workers and, most importantly, better outcomes for patients and families across the North.

Mr Robinson: I beg to move

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

Mr Robinson: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I very much welcome the opportunity to speak on this important and timely motion. I thank the Members who tabled it, and I hope that they can support our amendment.

We have heard the term "a lifeline" used in the Chamber many times. How fitting is that term for home care or domiciliary care? It is indeed a lifeline for so many of our people. It is the support that allows an older person to be in the home that they have lived in for decades. Home care services offer reassurance for a person with disabilities to live independently and allow those who live with long-term conditions to remain close to their families and neighbours and in their local area.

The population here is ageing, and demand is therefore increasing. More people are living longer with complex health needs, and, increasingly, care is delivered not in hospitals but in people's homes. The neighbourhood model and shift left is the right direction of travel. Ask people and most will say that they want to remain at home for as long as possible. From a health perspective, prevention and community-based support are more sustainable than repeated hospital admissions or prolonged stays in acute settings.

While demand in the sector continues to grow, the pressures facing home care providers and workers are becoming unsustainable. The Department told us in late April that there have been sustained pressures on the system over recent years, particularly within home care. The unmet figures at the end of March this year indicated that 1,872 individuals were awaiting a full care package and 893 were awaiting part packages of care.

In the independent sector across Northern Ireland, care workers are leaving because they feel undervalued, underpaid and exhausted. In one provider alone, 73% of their leavers are leaving the sector altogether. Other providers highlight how that issue is now at a tipping point. As I referred to, some struggle to retain staff, particularly in rural areas where travel distances are greater while fuel costs continue to rise. In some areas, packages of care are at breaking point due to high rates of staff sickness.

The consequences are that, every day, hundreds of patients who are fit for discharge remain stuck in under-pressure hospital beds because there is no care package for them in their own home or an appropriate package cannot be put in place quickly. That issue ripples right across the health service, contributing to overcrowding in emergency departments, ambulance pressures and growing waiting lists. A 2025 Audit Office report highlighted that 3,800 patients were potentially subject to severe harm in 2024 as a result of handover delays. Furthermore, the RCEM estimates that long waits in EDs were linked to 1,032 excess deaths in 2025. Therefore, when we talk in the House about home care, it is a key pillar and is central to the functioning of the entire health and social care system. It is key to patients being treated in beds rather than on trolleys, in ambulances or in hospital corridors. Patients fit for discharge are not free to treat in hospital. It costs money that could be better spent.

It is important to recognise that home care workers carry out skilled, emotionally demanding and physically challenging work. They often become a trusted source of companionship for those who might otherwise see very few people throughout the day. That is why the previous commitment to introduce the real living wage for independent care workers is so important. Pay alone will not solve every challenge in the sector, but it is widely recognised as an important foundation for recruitment and retention.

Crucially, people should not face poor access to home care simply because they live in a rural area or because providers cannot recruit staff. Everyone deserves home care, regardless of the postcode. It is therefore deeply concerning that care in the countryside could be cut, according to a major healthcare company.

Strengthening home care is the smart thing to do, economically and strategically. Investing in community care reduces pressure in hospitals, supports early intervention and improves quality of life for countless individuals and their families. All of us in the Chamber want to ensure that people who require home care can age with independence, grace and respect. It is also important to recognise that the home care sector's staff, who are among some of the lowest paid in the health system, stepped up and showed extraordinary bravery during and after the COVID pandemic, in particular. Home care workers will tell you that they are fed up with warm words and gratitude. I therefore support the motion and hope that other Members will support our amendment.

Mr Donnelly: Strengthening home care provision is a vital part of the solution to the crisis of hospital flow and the need to reduce pressures on our health service.

As Members will be aware, the number of patients waiting more than 12 hours in A&E has increased by 14% since March last year. Recent projections from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) show that Northern Ireland's population is ageing rapidly. The number of people over the age of 65 is projected to rise by almost 45% over the next 25 years, while the number of over-85s is expected to more than double, rising by 126%. Those figures are more than alarming; they are a flashing red light and a blaring siren. This is not a question of affordability; it is a necessity. Demand for care in the community will only continue to grow. If we fail to build a sustainable community care system now, the pressure that we already face will become even more severe in the years ahead.

We all have stories of friends and family members who waited for hours in A&E because of a lack of community care on the other side. This year, we have already seen that almost one in four patients attending a major emergency department waits more than 12 hours; 10 years ago, that number was one in 100. That reflects the systemic pressures across the health and social care system, including community capacity failures and delayed discharges. Recently, in one of our major hospitals, there were 70 patients in A&E about whom there had been a decision to admit — they required admission to the wards for treatment — and over 100 medically fit patients in the wards. If the medically fit patients could have been safely discharged in a timely manner, the patients in A&E could have been admitted to the wards for the care that they needed. That is why home care should not be treated as a secondary service: it is essential healthcare infrastructure.

We need to take seriously providers' warnings regarding the sustainability of domiciliary care in our rural communities. If services are withdrawn from rural areas because providers can no longer afford to deliver them, vulnerable people and their families will be left without access to care. No one should face reduced access to care because they live in a rural area. Care workers too often feel overstretched and underpaid, which is why Alliance has consistently supported the introduction of the real living wage for social care workers. Workforce stability depends on fair pay and proper recognition of the value of care work. Unfortunately, the real living wage was not delivered last year as promised, but we welcome the Minister's intention to look at that and at pay uplifts early in the budget process.

Pay alone will not solve every challenge. We also need workforce planning; support with travel and mileage costs, particularly in our rural communities; improved recruitment and retention; and genuine engagement with staff, providers, carers and service users. Strengthening home care provision is about creating a sustainable healthcare service for the future. For those reasons, Alliance will support the motion and the amendment.

Mr Chambers: The motion is right in recognising the enormous contribution that is made by home care workers. They are people who carry out physically demanding, emotionally draining and deeply responsible work every day. As has already been said, they travel huge distances. They work unsociable hours. They support people with increasingly complex needs. Their duties are always delivered with kindness, compassion and a willingness to go the extra mile. However, very often, sadly, they do so with far too little recognition.

Meanwhile, demand continues to grow year after year. The Health Committee has regularly heard that home care pressures are being compounded by rising demand, workforce shortages and ongoing funding constraints. Almost 2,800 people across Northern Ireland are living with assessed, unmet home care need. That should concern every Member. The truth is this: for too long, social care has been treated as the poor relation of our health system. The COVID pandemic shone a spotlight not only on the importance but on its fragility, so I very much welcome the Minister's focus on it.

Every MLA knows that, when home care collapses, pressure floods straight back into our hospitals. Frankly, one of the greatest frustrations in the debate is in listening to parties claim to support community care while they repeatedly fail to provide the financial certainty that is needed to sustain it. It is remarkable to listen to parties emphasise the need to invest in social care when they sit around an Executive table that still cannot deliver the long-term financial certainty that is needed to sustain it.

Indeed, the motion would perhaps have been more credible had it not come from the party whose Finance Minister is urging other Ministers to do everything that they can to avoid increasing the budgetary shortfalls that they face. Despite all the speeches about valuing care workers, there are still political parties that present an image of there somehow being easy answers. There are not. If there were, policies would have been introduced long before now. I fully support the introduction of the real living wage. Many home care workers should have been receiving the real living wage long ago. They carry out difficult and exhausting work in all weathers, often travelling significant distances between calls, all the while holding together a service on which many families now completely rely.

Let us be honest enough to tell the public the full story. Sustainable workforce models cannot be built on financial chaos. Transformation cannot be delivered through annual firefighting exercises. Scandinavian-style public services cannot be promised while there is a refusal to take difficult budgetary decisions. Six weeks into the new financial year, where is the urgency about the lack of a Budget? There is none. That is an outrageous position for the Executive and the Assembly to be in. Political motions such as the ones being debated today do not pay mileage bills, recruit staff or discharge patients. If we are serious about sustaining home care, we cannot simply continue doing more of the same. I am quite sure that the Minister believes the same. Home care workers deserve far more than warm words from the Assembly. They deserve political leaders who are prepared to stop using social care as a rhetorical prop, while they quietly avoid the political actions and leadership necessary to sustain it. Until the Assembly is finally prepared to match its rhetoric with financial and political reality, I worry that motions such as today's are increasingly being used by some to try to distract from the wider, fundamental decisions, or lack thereof, from the Executive.

Mr McGrath: Tonight, people across South Down and beyond will be worrying about whether they will get their loved one home from hospital. Families will be wondering whether the care package that they have at the moment will still be there in a month's time. Home care workers, who drive on rural roads in all weathers, will be rushing from call to call to try to offer dignity, compassion and humanity from a system that too often feels stretched to breaking point.

In the past days, I have been inundated with responses to my post on social media about the debate. It is important that the voices of the domiciliary care workers who have reached out to me be heard in the debate. They referred to being paid per call, rather than per hour. Imagine if that were the case here, with MLAs being paid per contribution rather than being paid a salary. Domiciliary care workers are frustrated by changes to the system that mean that they can sometimes spend only 15 minutes with somebody for whom they care. They wonder what will happen should they go over time. Will they not get paid? Do they stop the care? Do they jump in their car and move on to the next person? The pay that they get for their mileage does not reflect the cost of the mileage or the number of miles that they cover. One constituent said to me:

Is dignified care too much to ask for? I urge the Minister to hear those voices, listen to what they are saying and determine whether we can do something about it.

As a member of the Health Committee, it is important that I say that this is one of the issues on which there is consensus among Committee members. The Committee agrees that something needs to be done. We recognise the essential role that home care workers, be they employed by HSC or the independent sector, play not just in supporting vulnerable people but in holding together our wider health service. When home care struggles, obstacles emerge in other places in our health service. Hospitals get backed up, and staff then feel the pressure, families become exhausted and frustrated, and patients remain in beds when they should be at home. That is why I support the intention behind the motion and the amendment on the growing crisis in rural areas.

For constituencies such as South Down, rurality is not a footnote in this discussion; it is the bulk of the content, because those in places such as Kilkeel, Attical, Ballykinlar and Leitrim have a very different experience from those in urban areas. A missed call in Belfast may mean a delay. A missed call in somewhere such as South Down may mean that a person does not see anyone for the entire day.

We know that the pressures will only increase. The Department's figures show that more than 23,000 people receive care every week from domiciliary services. At the same time, our ageing population is growing rapidly. Within the next year, there will be more people over 65 than there are under 15, and the number of people over 85 is projected to more than double. The demand, complexity and pressure are growing, yet the workforce is shrinking. It is shrinking, in part, because of the wages that we pay. It is about the real living wage. The Minister has repeatedly stated his support for implementing the real living wage. In fact, he promised it last year and then reneged on that promise. Now he says that he will pay up when the Finance Minister does. He is busy blaming the Brits, and nobody in the Executive is willing to stand up. Nobody will take any damn responsibility for paying those people what they need to be paid in order to do the work that provides the dignity that we spoke about earlier.

Right now, the cracks are visible. Across the North, more than 2,000 people are waiting for a full home care package. In some trust areas, patients who are medically fit for discharge are waiting weeks because they cannot get the domiciliary care that they need. I urge the Minister to hear the voices of those who work in domiciliary care, to respond to their needs and to deliver a system that truly works for staff, patients and the public at large.

Ms Finnegan: Some very important points have been made on the motion. Important comments have also been made across the House by a party that seems to have forgotten that it, too, sits on the Executive. That seems like a major deflection from taking responsibility.

I support the motion, which highlights the very real pressures facing home care services across rural constituencies, such as my constituency of Newry and Armagh. One issue that is increasingly raised in my constituency office is the real struggle that families face in trying to secure appropriate care packages for loved ones who simply want to remain living at home safely and independently. For families across south Armagh and the rural parts of Newry and Armagh, that challenge is particularly severe.

In recent months, I have met care workers from the Southern Health and Social Care Trust, along with providers and agencies, including Enable Care, who voiced their concerns about the growing pressures on the sector. They spoke about workforce shortages, the increasing demands that raise operational costs and, critically, the additional burden of delivering care in large rural areas. In those rural areas, care workers often travel 40 miles or 50 miles on a single run to reach vulnerable people living in isolated communities. They travel long distances on rural roads in all weather conditions to try to ensure that people receive the support and dignity that they absolutely deserve. That cannot continue to be ignored.

This has been an issue for some time. When providers cannot recruit or retain staff, or when the delivery of rural packages becomes financially unsustainable, it is vulnerable people and their families who suffer the consequences. Carers have recently told me that, when they calculate their wages and travel costs, they are not even making minimum wage, and —

Mr McGlone: Will the Member give way?

Ms Finnegan: — they simply cannot —. Yes, go ahead.

Mr McGlone: Thanks very much, Aoife. We have come to the Chamber on numerous occasions and heard the same issues: people cannot be discharged from hospital; there are growing waiting lists for care, especially in rural areas; there are fewer carers; there are mediocre wages and a mediocre career structure for carers; and there are growing travel expenses.

In essence, it is not Groundhog Day; it is Groundhog Year, year in and year out.

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

Ms Finnegan: Thank you for that.

I appreciate the points made in the intervention, and I agree that it needs to be sorted as a matter of urgency.

As has been said, patients who are medically fit to leave hospital remain there because a suitable care package for them cannot be sourced. Families are exhausted trying to fill the gaps themselves. Older carers, many of whom have health conditions of their own, carry enormous responsibility without the support that they need.

Home care workers provide an invaluable service in communities across the North. They help people to wash, dress, eat, take medication and maintain their independence, but they also provide companionship and a human connection to people who may otherwise be isolated and alone. Sometimes, care workers are the only people whom an individual sees day to day, yet, despite the essential nature of its work, the sector continues to face major recruitment and retention difficulties. That is why the commitment to introduce the real living wage for social care workers must be delivered on. If we are serious about protecting our health service, reducing the pressure on hospitals and supporting people to live independently for longer, we must be serious about investing to future-proof our home care sector. We must truly recognise the additional challenges faced by rural communities, such as those in Newry and Armagh, where geography and travel distances place a further strain on an already overstretched service.

Echoing comments that have been made here today, I record my sincere appreciation of every home care worker across our community for the incredible work that they do every day. However, appreciation alone is not enough. The workers deserve to have fair pay, proper support and a system that values the essential role that they play in caring for some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

Mr Gaston: There is no way to dress it up: we must be open and honest with the public that there is a crisis in home care provision. In North Antrim, the Northern Trust area is a particularly telling case study of the issues that affect the sector. In December 2025, the Northern Trust had 532 people waiting for full care packages and a further 303 waiting for partial packages. The Department acknowledges that there are geographical black spots where care packages are difficult to source. Why? It is because providers often cannot make those runs financially viable. In answer to Mrs Erskine, the Minister said that providers favoured urban areas, where shorter distances make care packages more profitable. What does that mean to the layman in the street? It means that an elderly person in a rural community may wait longer for care not because their need is less serious but because they live too far away from an urban area.

The truth is that many home care workers do extraordinary work in increasingly difficult circumstances. They work unsocial hours; they travel huge distances; they often work alone and deal with increasingly complex needs; yet the sector continues to struggle with recruitment and retention because many of its workers can earn comparable wages in hospitality or retail with far less pressure and responsibility. Genuinely valuing the care sector will take more than warm words during debates; it means fair pay. It means doing what Scotland has done and not just talking about a living wage for the sector but making it a reality by prioritising it across government.

The problem in Northern Ireland is that Departments are split up between parties with no agreed Programme for Government before they form a Government, and then we have the nonsense of Minister after Minister standing at the Dispatch Box and saying that they cannot do anything about the issue.

Indeed, the system that we have positively discourages the other parties from helping a Minister — the Health Minister, in this case — deliver their goal, because it would be seen as an achievement by a rival party, and so the hamster wheel continues —

Mr McGuigan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: — ensuring that the silo mentality lives long. I am happy to give way.

Mr McGuigan: I accept what the Member has said, but I do not agree with him. The current and previous Sinn Féin Finance Ministers have prioritised Departments outside of their own, particularly Health, and have given the Health Minister over 52% of the available Budget. It is unfair to say that other Ministers have not prioritised Health. We all recognise that Health has to be a priority, but it is up to the Minister to deal with the £8·6 billion that is at his disposal and make decisions.

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

Mr Gaston: I welcome the contribution. I am looking at some of the figures for what London sends to Belfast. The spend per head of population in England is £13,134. In Wales, it is 15·4% greater, at £15,155; in Scotland, it is 18·6% higher than it is in England and sits at £15,563; and, in Northern Ireland, the spend per head of population is 22·7% higher than it is in England at £16,116. Those are the 2024-25 figures.

I agree with what the Member said in his intervention. More needs to be done, more can be done and more should be done through the Health Department. There are things that the Health Minister could do on this issue, but he is not doing them. In preparing for today's debate, I read with interest Mr Nesbitt's response to a question for written answer from the Member for East Londonderry Ms Hunter in which he admitted that the Department has not even carried out a formal assessment of the mileage reimbursement rates for domiciliary care workers who are employed by independent providers. Why not? In large rural constituencies like North Antrim, travel is essential to deliver that service, and at a time of rising fuel costs, it is an aspect of the job that eats into the already meagre pay of those who deliver vital front-line services. The Minister comes here and says that he needs more money, and I understand the Member sticking up for his Finance Minister. More should be done with the budget that we have, and there are glaring inadequacies in how money in the Stormont pot is being prioritised. A number of months ago, the House had no problem finding money for the 27% salary increase for MLAs, yet, when it comes to this vital front-line service —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Will the Member draw his remarks to a close?

Mr Gaston: — it cannot even enact the living wage for domiciliary care workers in our community. That shows you that the priorities in this place —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Timothy.

Mr Gaston: — are not right.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, over to you. You have 15 minutes.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you, and thank you to all who contributed to this important debate. When I took up post nearly two years ago, it was put to me that Ministers tend to go out and about at some point on day one. It was suggested that I visit the Ulster Hospital, just around the corner from Parliament Buildings. I said that I did not want to visit a hospital. I was interested in visiting social care settings, because I was conscious that the "H" in "HSC" is very much dominant. I wanted to start an immediate focus on shifting left, because in an ideal world, in my mind, if you need health and social care, you get it at home, and if not at home, as close to your front door as possible. A hospital should be the last resort. I hope that Members understand that I am very much wedded to improving the lot of social care delivery for patients, service users and the people who deliver social care in our community.

As we know, demand is increasing. Not only are the numbers going up but so are complexity and acuity. Many of us are living longer — I am a living example of that — and more of us are living with multiple long-term conditions and with frailty and cognitive impairment. Therefore, I will push strongly, in policy terms, to help people to live well and live independently for as long as possible, and home care is and will continue to be an essential service at the centre of that ambition.

However, I also fully realise, as the motion highlights, that, like many other parts of the health and social care system, the home care sector is under significant and sustained pressure. Workforce shortages persist, and recruitment and retention remain challenging, particularly when other sectors may offer comparable or higher pay, as many Members have pointed out. As well as offering better pay, those sectors may offer more predictable hours and lower travel demands. I accept that rising fuel and travel costs have also had a disproportionate impact on home care, especially in rural and hard-to-cover areas, where staff often travel significant distances between visits. I understand that those pressures have real and visible consequences, such as unmet need in the community, increased pressure on families and growing strain on our hospitals because of delayed discharges, which, again, Members analysed during the debate. We also know that extended and non-essential stays in hospital are rarely conducive to good health outcomes, particularly for older and frail people. I want to be definitive and say that those challenges are not the result of a lack of commitment or professionalism in the sector. Home care workers and providers continue to go above and beyond, often under the most difficult circumstances. Those pressures reflect long-standing structural issues, demographic change, rising demand and years of financial instability and uncertainty.

That brings me to the issue of the real living wage, which is, rightly, highlighted in the motion. The failure to secure agreement on a multi-year Executive Budget has materially constrained my ability to implement the real living wage within the timescales that I want. I have been clear about my commitment to the issue right from the outset, but meaningful reform in health and social care cannot be delivered on short-term financial settlements or year-to-year uncertainty alone. The independent social care sector deserves better than that, workers delivering essential care in people's homes deserve better than that, and Ministers trying to plan sustainability for the future of our public services require better than that. It is simply not credible to speak about transformation, workforce reform or long-term sustainability while Departments remain trapped in cycles of financial instability and constrained annual budgeting. I want to be equally clear that the delay in implementing the real living wage is not due to a lack of political will from me as Minister. It is now a direct consequence of the wider financial constraints and is worsened by the absence of long-term budget certainty. That is a matter of great professional frustration to me, because I completely accept the need to level the playing field for those working in the independent sector and to ensure fair wages for the challenging and important work that they carry out.

I listened carefully to Mr McGuigan when he opened the debate, and I agree with him that it is counter-strategic. That is what I said to him and his Committee. However, I listened to him carefully and noted his language: the verb that he used was "demand". He demanded that, as Minister, I introduce the real living wage. I could not identify where to make the cut that would release the money to introduce the real living wage, so I will not demand anything; rather, I invite the Member, not least because he is Chair of the Statutory Committee that scrutinises my work and has a statutory obligation to assist and advise, to tell me where the cuts should be made.

Mr McGuigan: I thank the Minister for allowing me to come in, because I was going to make an intervention. He talks about the need for the Executive to agree a Budget to provide financial stability. I agree with that, but that is looking into the future. It was not me, as Chair of the Health Committee, who made the promise in January 2025 to introduce the real living wage to home care workers by September 2025; it was you, Minister. I accept that he is inviting me to comment, but I am not the Minister. It was the Minister who disappointed the home care sector. When he had his budget for 2024 and 2025, he made the promise to home care workers that he would introduce the real living wage; it was you, Minister, who reneged on that promise even though you had your budget for those proceeding years.

Mr Nesbitt: Well, I made the promise in good faith. Between making the promise and its implementation, it was put to me by the accounting officer that it was not affordable without cuts.

Once again, I will give way if the Member wants to identify a cut that I was unable to identify.

Mr McGuigan: Minister, it is not for me to do your job. That is why you are appointed as Minister. I understand that your party colleague wants the Executive to share the blame. Maybe we do not need a Health Minister if your party wants the Executive to share all the blame without your taking any of the responsibility.

My point is that you made financial decisions this year and last year when you were given your budget. You made a promise, and you made the decision to renege on it.

Mr Nesbitt: Once again, I emphasise that my accounting officer told me that it was unaffordable and that I could not do it. I note that the Member, who is Chair of the Committee, is reneging on his duty to assist and advise me by telling me that it is my problem.

I will move on, because I am mindful of the ongoing concerns raised by independent sector representatives. I acknowledge their dissatisfaction. As part of the fair work forum, they worked with us in good faith to establish a case for paying the real living wage in the independent social care sector. On that basis, their expectation that it would be paid was reasonable. However, critical as pay is, it is only one part of the answer to the wider pressures that are facing social care, a point that has been made already in these discussions. Participation in a debate about the longer-term sustainability of the sector is equally important, and it is regrettable that some key representatives have withdrawn from those wider reform discussions and fora. I genuinely hope that that can be rectified, because sustainable reform requires partnership working.

I assure the sector and Members that my commitment to introducing the real living wage in line with the fair work forum criteria remains absolute. However, I need the funding and the financial flexibility to make that happen. The financial pressures that face Health and Social Care are becoming even more constrained with each passing year. Today, we believe that our shortfall is £760 million. That is unprecedented and potentially unmanageable.

As I have said previously, pay alone will not resolve all the challenges facing the home care sector. What is required and what the motion rightly calls for is a comprehensive, sustainable and future-focused approach to strengthening home care. That will require further investment in staff. The social care workforce strategy sets out our ambition to attract, retain, grow and develop the workforce. The social care fair work forum, which is made up of trade unions, employers and statutory partners, also continues to work to improve terms and conditions and to embed fair work principles across the sector.

Strengthening home care will also require changes in how we deliver that care. We cannot simply continue doing more of the same and expect different outcomes. We know that current approaches will not be capable of meeting future demand. That means that we must explore new solutions, embrace innovation and empower people to live well and live independently for longer. Importantly, any future reform must be shaped by those who provide care and by those who receive it. We are working with the Patient and Client Council (PCC) and the Northern Ireland Social Care Council (NISCC) to ensure that engagement is meaningful, practical and capable of delivering real improvement.

Home care cannot be viewed in isolation. It exists within a wider adult social care ecosystem, and many of the pressures that affect home care are symptoms of wider systemic pressures across social care itself. That is precisely why we developed and published a 10-year adult social care reform strategic plan and an initial three-year delivery plan earlier this year. The strategic plan identifies six core priorities and 33 delivery actions. Those plans strike what, I believe, is a careful balance between ambition and realism in an exceptionally difficult financial climate. We have prioritised actions that are either immediately necessary or capable of delivering the greatest impact.

A new approach to home care is identified as one of the central commitments in that reform agenda. Work has already commenced through a sustainable systems implementation group, which is examining how home care is commissioned, funded and delivered.

The group is also considering whether existing legislative, policy and procedural frameworks remain fit for purpose. That work builds directly on the home care round-table discussions that were conducted between August and December last year. Those discussions reached broad agreement that the future of home care must involve moving away from rigid time-and-task models towards taking a more flexible, person-centred approach that is focused on outcomes. They also highlighted the importance of re-enablement, ensuring that short-term support helps people recover independence wherever possible, while also ensuring sustainable, long-term provision for those who have ongoing needs. The round-table meetings also identified examples of best practice already operating across the statutory and independent sectors. Where we know that approaches are working, we should not wait years to replicate them elsewhere.

Another key part of reform is prevention and early intervention. Part of addressing demand for home care must involve finding ways in which to reduce delay or to remove the need for statutory intervention altogether. Work is already under way on a preventative framework that is focused on strengthening local community supports to help people remain safe, well, connected and independent. Many of those supports already exist, and they are delivering excellent outcomes. I have visited organisations and community groups that deliver precisely that kind of preventative support, which is helping older people remain active, resilient and connected in their communities. We have also seen evidence from elsewhere in the United Kingdom that such approaches can improve outcomes while reducing pressures elsewhere in the system. In other words, it is not simply the right thing to do but the smart thing to do. We must also make greater use of existing community assets and, where possible, scale them. That approach aligns directly with the wider ambitions of the neighbourhood model.

We must also fully explore the role that technology can play. Assistive technology and digital supports are already demonstrating significant benefits elsewhere in the United Kingdom through improving independence and delivering greater efficiency. Another important priority is to increase the uptake of self-directed support in all its forms. As a result of the self-directed support round-table meetings, work is already progressing to streamline processes, reduce democracy and develop managed budget pilots. I will give way to the Member.

Mr Donnelly: I thank the Minister for giving way. We have seen a 14% rise in 12-hour waits in A&Es, primarily because of overcrowding in emergency departments and on wards and the inability to discharge medically fit patients. The numbers do not add up. There are twice as many medically fit patients on wards as there are patients in A&E who need to be admitted. If we cannot discharge those patients in a timely and safe manner, that is a crisis. Does the Minister accept that the lack of capacity in the community is driving that overcrowding in A&Es and on wards?

Mr Nesbitt: I absolutely do. That is the analysis that I brought to the House when I first became Minister of Health. In the first winter in which we talked about such pressures, the discussion was all about what was happening and not happening in EDs. The House now realises that it is about flow and that the problem is a lack of community capacity, so I agree with the Member.

Finally, I remain mindful of the concerns that some independent-sector providers have raised about the balance to be struck between in-house and independent provision and about whether the true cost to care is fully recognised. I am out of time, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the fact that we have debated the issue today.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed, Minister. I call Gareth Wilson to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. Gareth, you have five minutes.

Mr Wilson: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to support our party's amendment to the motion. It is not an exaggeration to say that we are staring down the barrel of a home care crisis. In fact, in the rural areas that I represent, that home care crisis is already starting to manifest itself. I have had many calls from, and conversations with, families who want their loved one home, but the necessary assistance is becoming so difficult to secure that their loved one is having to remain in hospital, with no clear timeline for their being discharged.

Last week, media coverage revealed what many have long suspected, which is that cuts are being made to the frequency and duration of home care visits in rural areas. That is truly a worrying situation, and one that has far-reaching consequences. Domiciliary care workers are arguably one of the backbones of our health and social care system, yet they are repeatedly overworked and underpaid. The folly of the entire situation is that the end product of the cuts will be more pressure on our hospitals and emergency departments and more stress placed on our older people. That costs everyone and benefits no one.

In my recent exchanges with the Health Minister, he referred to a situation last winter, in which 400 people were in A&Es awaiting admission to hospital. However, compounding the capacity situation, 500 people were awaiting discharge from hospital. They could not be discharged due to the very issues that we are debating today.

In answer to a question from me in the Chamber, the Minister stated:

I say to him: get cracking.

The Health Minister made those comments some weeks ago. However, the situation is not improving. It is getting worse, with care providers stating recently that they can no longer service some rural areas with care packages. That is a serious problem that demands very serious engagement.

The situation itself creates anxiety for vulnerable people, such as the elderly. The Commissioner for Older People, in a recent report entitled, 'Voices of Concern', stated so. The results of the commissioner's survey showed that deteriorating services for older people created a sense of anxiety. That is not helpful to our older population, who have worked hard all their lives and expect services to meet their needs. They want to feel cared for; they do not want to feel anxious.

The Minister, in response to a recent question from me, admitted that delivering the real living wage for carers is essential. It is clear that addressing the rising costs of fuel for carers in our community and increasing care in the community, particularly in rural areas, are all solutions to the growing crisis. The Minister needs to act now. Failing to address the issue will lead to a financial and human cost. Morale among staff is arguably low. Now we are asking them to do the impossible. When a carer's time is cut short, it means rushed conversations and less time for important and caring interactions. It means less care delivered. If the crisis is not averted, carers will have less time to be present with those whom they care for. Behind every person who is cared for is someone who deserves to feel safe and valued, regardless of where they live in Northern Ireland.

I will recap some Members' comments. Danny Donnelly pointed to the statistics in the domiciliary care system, the waits in A&E and the impact that they have on the healthcare system. Alan Chambers spoke of the importance of the role of home care staff and the lack of recognition of those staff. He said that, when home care issues arise, it creates pressures in our hospitals. Colin McGrath spoke of the worry that the issue creates for families and staff delivering a stretched service. He highlighted the voice of carers on time, pay and the pressured environment. Aoife Finnegan pointed to the fact that the Health Minister sits at the Executive table. She referred to the pressures in delivering domiciliary care in rural areas across Newry and Armagh. She referred to the dilemma of carers not making ends meet. Timothy Gaston spoke of the crisis in provision and referred to the situation in the Northern Trust. He spoke of the rural versus urban divide in service delivery. Minister Nesbitt said that he is wedded to improving the outlook for social care. He spoke of the issue of a multi-year Budget. The Minister said that more of the same will not deliver the change required.

Our amendment strengthens the motion and reflects the unique challenges that are taking hold of our rural areas. I encourage all Members to back it.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Emma Sheerin. You have up to 10 minutes.

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

At the conclusion of the debate, it is fairly clear that there is consensus across the House. There were a number of recurring themes in Members' contributions here this afternoon. The Minister stated very clearly that he sees the need for action around home care and social care and the benefit that that can bring to us all because there really is no argument against the motion presented here today.

Apart from the fact that this is about bringing dignity to the people whom we represent, there is a very clear economic and financial argument that, if you are able to keep people safely at home for longer, you maintain their mental and emotional well-being if they are cared for at home, and they are less likely to have an accident that results in them having to attend hospital, which, ultimately, leads to fewer admissions to hospital. If people can be discharged safely in a timely manner, there are shorter hospital stays, and that reduces the pressure on our hospitals.

The Minister referred to the different pressures that he has to contend with in respect of the Health budget, and all Members across the House, particularly on these Benches, sympathise with him on that.

However, one of the frustrating things about that is the fact that we see multiple instances of waste across the system, not least in capital projects. The pressures in our A&E departments and wards across hospitals in the North, which the Member for East Antrim mentioned, are part of the reason that so many of our healthcare staff in hospitals are under such severe pressure and, ultimately, end up on long-term sick leave. That requires their posts to be backfilled, meaning that we have an over-dependency on agency staff, which, again, is not cost-efficient.

I turn to the asks in the motion. I have been raising the need for action on home care provision since I became an MLA, because it is one of the issues that are brought to me most frequently. We see it disproportionately in the rural constituency that I represent, Mid Ulster. I personally struggle with it, because it is one of the most heart-wrenching situations that you can deal with. I have spoken at length about it in the Chamber.

The majority of people who contact me about it are women. It is normally the daughters, daughters-in-law, sisters, nieces, neighbours or grandchildren of an elderly relative who ring me in distress, begging for a pitiful amount of care that would allow their loved one to remain safely at home. One of the most frustrating things that I find is that those people will make an argument to me to justify why they need that care. They tell me their story and about all the other pressures that are on them. They may be a wife or mother. They may work full-time hours or manage their own house. Often, it is a combination of all of those factors. They tell me that they are at their wits' end, and I say, "I know. I believe you. You do not have to justify yourself or explain your scenario or situation to me, because we all deserve healthcare that is free at the point of delivery". Our elderly population deserves a certain standard of care and dignity in their own home. They should not have to fight for it.

We find that families are asked to fill in a carer's assessment and estimate how many hours of care they can cover themselves. They stop being a loved one — a relative, a wife, a daughter, a sister or a niece — and become an unpaid carer. They have to be there at 7.00 pm on a Tuesday evening and stay until 7.00 am the following morning. That means that their daughter, their son or their neighbour to whom they committed to give a lift is left in the lurch because they are no longer available. We see families who are at one another's throats and have to deal with all the tensions that arise because they are no longer just families who see each other socially when they want but managers of direct payment contracts and rotas. They have to deal with all those things that they should not have to deal with.

I am in contact with a family whose 81-year-old mother was admitted to hospital in October last year. At that point, she had a care package with three calls a day. She was ready for discharge before Christmas, but she ended up in a rehab bed. She stayed there longer than she needed to. She was fit for discharge at the beginning of the year, but she ended up reluctantly taking a contingency bed in a different nursing home facility. She has been there since the end of February because the care package that she needs in order to return home safely has not been made available. That family are at their wits' end. They are begging for the bare minimum: four calls a day.

On the other side of that are the carers, who, as multiple contributors to the debate mentioned, are paid minimum wage for a job that is emotionally, physically and mentally draining. Again, as we have seen over the years, that workforce is dominated by women. It is not a job; it is a vocation. When people were able to make a decent living from that job, some of them ended up staying in it for far longer than they perhaps would have liked.

Mr Donnelly: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sheerin: I will.

Mr Donnelly: I am interested in the Member's example of the lady who was unable to leave that care provision. Does the Member agree that it makes no economic sense to deliver that more expensive care in a nursing home, when what that lady obviously needs is a less expensive care package at home?

Ms Sheerin: Absolutely. One of that lady's sons has done an economic analysis of how much the trust pays to keep her in the care home, where she is unhappy. Her mental health and emotional well-being are taking a hammering because she does not want to be there; she wants to be at home. It does not make sense, but the carers, who want to be out with her and have a relationship with her, cannot afford to fulfil that call.

We have carers, family members, patients and our elderly population in distress. It is clear that there is agreement across the House that this is something that needs action urgently. I would like the Minister, as he has repeatedly told us he will, to deliver on that.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ladies and gentlemen, take your ease while we await the Communities Minister.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): In conjunction with the Business Committee, the Speaker has given leave to Colin McGrath to raise the matter of the development of St Patrick's Day in Downpatrick.

Colin, you have 15 minutes. Over to you.

Mr McGrath: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am glad to have secured the Adjournment debate because this matters not just to me, but to the people whom I represent and to a town that should be a source of pride for the entire island and, indeed, the world over: I am, of course, talking about Downpatrick.

Let us be honest about it: Downpatrick should be thriving; it should be leading; and it should be setting a standard. Nowhere should that leadership be clearer than in how we celebrate St Patrick. Downpatrick is not just another town that is having a celebration or a parade; it is where St Patrick is buried, and it is the place where his story lives. It is the place that can say to the world with authenticity and confidence that this is where it all began. For a long time, we acted like we believed that. When you look back through the history of St Patrick's Day in Downpatrick, what strikes you is not just the scale of what happened but the ambition that there was behind it. It was not simply a parade moving through the streets for an hour before everyone went home again; it was a real festival that stretched across days and, sometimes, an entire week. It filled the town with music, markets, storytelling, theatre, pilgrimages, exhibitions, tours, dancing, crafts and family events. It brought people into the town centre and gave the place energy and life.

In 2003, the festival programme spoke about "Painting the Town Comic Red". There were carnival parades, outdoor theatres, steam trains, historical tours, live music workshops and storytelling events. In 2011, there were over 40 events across an entire week, including food markets, pilgrimages, museum events, a cross-community parade and family entertainment. When you read all of those old reports, what stands out is that there was belief: belief that Downpatrick mattered, that St Patrick's story could unite people and that the town could become a destination not just for a day but for an experience. Businesses benefited, schools could take part fully and families stayed in the town. People experienced Downpatrick not as somewhere to pass through but as the place to be.

If we are honest, however, under the new so-called super council of Newry, Mourne and Down, we have drifted away from that vision. Too often now, St Patrick's Day in Downpatrick feels reduced to a tick-box exercise rather than genuine ambition: stage — tick; parade — tick; road closures — tick. Where is the imagination? Where is the atmosphere? Where is the sense that Downpatrick is the spiritual home of Ireland's patron saint? People in Downpatrick certainly notice the difference. They notice when events feel managed rather than inspired; when organisation slips; and when the town feels like an afterthought instead of the centrepiece that it should be. The danger is not simply disappointment for one afternoon; it is much bigger. The danger is that our council is lowering the expectations of what Downpatrick should be. I refuse to accept that.

Our town has every ingredient required to succeed. What the council needs is ambition — real ambition. It needs ambition that says, "We will build a festival worthy of the place. We will create experiences across an entire week. We will invest in culture, heritage and tourism together. We will work with community groups, schools, churches, artists and businesses. We will make Downpatrick a destination again".

It is not about nostalgia; it is about learning from what worked and about looking to the future. In 2032, we will celebrate the 1,600th anniversary of St Patrick. We have a rare opportunity to get this right. For example, what better way to celebrate the anniversary than to invite Pope Leo XIV to visit the North of Ireland, which no Pope has been able to do, to visit St Patrick's final resting place and to celebrate Mass in St Patrick's Catholic church? I hope that the Executive would support the extension of such an invitation.

Minister, I appreciate that you are here to respond to the debate, and I know that the issues go beyond your Department. I reflect that funding has been made available from the Executive's Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC) funds in the past number of years, but, regrettably, the funding is always made available far too late. The council gets it only six or seven weeks before it is expected to deliver the festival, which is not enough time to sit down, make a game plan and work on the best way to put together the programme for St Patrick's Day. I hope that you can take that back to the Executive and say that, if the moneys are to be made available, they need to be made available much earlier in the year to allow proper planning to take place.

Imagine what could be achieved with such genuinely strategic thinking. We could get a week-long international festival, rather than just divvying up a wee bit here and a wee bit there to keep everyone happy. Downpatrick is the home of St Patrick: we should celebrate that and amplify it across the world. If they can have festivals in New York, in Rio de Janeiro, in Moscow and across Europe, Downpatrick should be the home of that and the place that leads it, but that ambition requires support from the local authority and the Executive to drive it. I hope that we can see that and allow the cross-community cultural events to happen, the schools and youth organisations to be involved and the town centre to be alive with visitors, music and activity. That is not unrealistic and should not be that difficult to deliver.

Let us stop thinking small about St Patrick's Day for Downpatrick. Let the local authority stop thinking that it is just another day in the year to get the tick box out and tick that things are in place. Let us reclaim the ambition that Downpatrick once had. As I said, it is not for nostalgia or simply for tourism brochures; it is because the town deserves it.

While we have the Communities Minister here, I encourage him to use every tool available to him to help towns such as Downpatrick. As I sometimes say, Downpatrick is one of those towns that are not big enough to be a city that can attract bigger investment and not small enough to have a cohort of groups — one group of this and one group of that — coming together in a community.

There are a number of towns of that size across Northern Ireland that are in that spot in between, and, because of that, they lose out.

I know that there is potential for Downpatrick to get some investment from the Department for Communities as part of its regeneration. I hope that that is considered, and that it will get some of the additional moneys that it needs. If a town receives investment, that will be followed by the local community's working with that investment and delivering for people in the area.

There are a number of areas across Northern Ireland where, following the amalgamation of councils, towns that were once the big town of a district are now a slightly smaller town in a bigger district. There is a psychological blow that comes with that. It is important that the Executive and councils do all that they can to deliver for towns such as Downpatrick so that they are given their chance to stand up and be counted. In some respects, the psychology of Downpatrick when it comes to St Patrick's Day typifies everything. It feels as though the events are put on just for the sake of it and, once they are over, they are out of the way and not thought about again until the prep begins for the events the following year. People in Downpatrick want, and deserve, better. They have earned better, and I hope that we will get it. St Patrick's Day is an excellent opportunity for us in Downpatrick to set out our stall for the world, and to be world leaders in that regard. It would allow our town to shine in the way in which it should.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): All other Members who speak will have five minutes.

Mr McMurray: I thank the Minister for being here, and I thank Colin McGrath for securing this Adjournment debate on St Patrick's Day in Downpatrick.

The most important aspect of St Patrick to me and many others is his confession, which begins:

While I will touch on the Downpatrick parade, there are many more elements to St Patrick's Day in Downpatrick. Of course, nowhere else in Ireland can claim to be as intertwined with the life of St Patrick as Downpatrick itself. He landed at Ringbane in Strangford lough and performed some of Ireland's first Christian baptisms in the spring wells of what is now known as Saul. My father took great pleasure in showing me the spring where it is reputed that he performed his first baptisms. However, a bit like with the cliffs — Ireland lays claim to three sets of the highest sea cliffs in Europe — I think that there are plenty of wells that claim to be the site of the first baptisms by Patrick. However, regardless of the historical veracity, to even metaphorically be the place where Christianity was developed on this island is quite something. Given that his ultimate resting place is in the grounds of Down cathedral, no other place in Ireland can claim to have such strong connections to the man who brought Christianity to this island.

A bit like the shamrock, there are three elements to St Patrick's Day in Downpatrick: the churches, the St Patrick Centre and the parade. Over the past number of years, I have taken to joining the St Patrick's Day service at Saul Church of Ireland. It is a very well-attended service, and there is usually an overflow from the church into the outside yard. What follows is a parade of sorts, with many of the congregation walking from Saul church to Down cathedral. There is also a 'Picnic in the Pews' event that the cathedral puts on, which is regularly well attended.

The St Patrick Centre is situated in the very heart of Downpatrick. It is the only permanent exhibition to Ireland's patron saint. Its conception and origins are found in the late 1990s, when there were dividends from the peace process and funding from the Millennium Commission, the European Commission and the Tourist Board. The St Patrick Centre is currently enjoying its 25th anniversary. Minister, since you are here, I suggest that it might be worth you taking a wee trip to see it some time, if that ever took your fancy. It was established to educate local people and international visitors about the lessons that can be learned from the history of St Patrick. Indeed, many of those lessons are as salient now as they ever were. I recently visited the centre and was able to ask about its connection with the St Patrick's Day parade and its organisation. The answer was very little, save for some of the traders asking whether they could plug into the electricity supply. If the debate were to go some way to establishing greater links between the St Patrick Centre and the parade, that would be a positive.

The parade is the focal point for many people in the town and further afield. Art projects, youth groups and fancy cars all take part in the parade. There is also a gig rig for local musicians. However, over the years that I have known it, there has been a feeling that, as Mr McGrath reflected, all of that is not as well supported as it could be. That seems to be a missed trick, given not just the importance of the symbolism of St Patrick but, as has been stated, the fact that Downpatrick is the town with the biggest tangible link to St Patrick. Celebrating the link to St Patrick should not be confined to just one day; it should be weaved into everything in the town, all year round.

In life, we should all try to establish our own traditions. A tradition that I have begun to practise a little more over the years is potato planting. I like to get a few early potatoes planted on St Patrick's Day. I give a shout-out to Byrne’s Nursery. It is nothing huge — just a 20-foot drill — but, as the saying goes, "In with Paddy and out with Billy". With potatoes, it is as much about what you put in as what you take out. Perhaps planting potatoes could be a good metaphor for us all to strive to see the best in all aspects of parades in our society.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you for that horticultural guidance.

Mrs Mason: I love these South Down Adjournment debates. You are never quite sure what topic you are going to get or where the debate will go.

Downpatrick is a place of regional and global significance. It is steeped in history from the Battle of Downpatrick at the Mound of Down, laid by John de Courcy, to the ancient Ballynoe stone circle, the stunning ruins of Inch Abbey, the healing waters of Struell Wells and, of course, the final resting place of United Irishman Thomas Russell. It is also, of course, the resting place of St Patrick, a figure who is recognised across the world and whose legacy is deeply rooted in Downpatrick.

Each year, people travel from across the island and from across the globe to celebrate that legacy, specifically on St Patrick's Day. In recent years, we have seen progress. The festival has grown, powered by the dedication of local volunteers, community groups, organisers and all the local Churches, which are actively involved. This year's celebrations were vibrant and creative, and the entire community can be proud of them. With proper support, they can be better, however. Real credit has to go to the local arts centre and to our schools and community groups: their creativity and commitment are what truly brings St Patrick's Day in Downpatrick to life.

Downpatrick, as has already been mentioned, is also home to the Saint Patrick Centre, the only permanent exhibition in the world that is dedicated to St Patrick. As Andrew McMurray said, it is this year celebrating 25 years, which is an incredible achievement. It really is something special, and the work that Tim and the entire team at the centre continue to do in telling the story of St Patrick is a credit to them. They cannot do it alone, however. They need support, and, by that, I mean proper support. It cannot be left to local people and organisations alone to carry on something on that scale without the backing that it deserves.

Let us be honest: we are scratching the surface of what is possible. While Downpatrick holds the global story, it is not yet receiving global investment. There is huge untapped potential for tourism, for storytelling, for local businesses, for the arts and culture scene and for the wider economy. Last month, Sinn Féin councillors on Newry, Mourne and Down District Council took a step forward by agreeing to establish a new working group to plan ahead for a bigger and more ambitious St Patrick's Day celebration. I know that all parties will be represented on that group. It is a vision that would support local businesses, showcase local talent and truly reflect the heritage of the place.

The council's ambition alone will not be enough, however. I appreciate that the Minister for Communities is here to respond to the debate. If he really is serious about regional balance and investing in all cultural assets, Downpatrick has to be part of that plan. We have seen hundreds of thousands of pounds invested elsewhere in cultural projects, yet the home of St Patrick, one of the most recognised cultural figures in the world, still awaits the support that it deserves. That imbalance cannot continue. This is about recognising opportunity where it exists, and the opportunity in Downpatrick is undeniable.

I will take a moment to acknowledge the work of the Downpatrick regeneration working group and all those on the ground who continue to drive the ambition for Downpatrick forward, often with limited resources. We need a meaningful partnership between the council, the community and, crucially, the Department for Communities. I have engaged with the Minister to seek that support, and I ask him directly today whether he will commit to working with us all to develop a long-term and properly resourced vision for St Patrick's Day in Downpatrick.

As has already been said, this is about more than just one day; it is about unlocking huge potential, investing in our people and finally giving Downpatrick the recognition and support that it has long deserved. The world already knows St Patrick, so why is his home town still waiting for the investment that so many others take for granted?

Ms Forsythe: I thank Colin for the Adjournment debate. I declare at the outset that my dad is a councillor on Newry, Mourne and Down District Council.

I always seek to promote my constituency of South Down and Northern Ireland as a whole, as, I know, the Minister for Communities does. His work on establishing historic links and research, as he has done with US250, is most welcome, and there is huge potential for so much more. I have long felt that the story of St Patrick has not had the attention that it deserves, and so much more could and should be done here. He is the patron saint of Ireland and the missionary who brought Christianity to Ireland, and his life, his teaching, his story and his faith have shaped this country and the people who live here today. St Patrick's cross is an integral part of our Union flag, and we should all be confident in learning about and understanding our history.

Down Cathedral in Downpatrick is a spectacular place, and, in the graveyard, we have the grave of St Patrick. Throughout the year and regularly on St Patrick's Day, some of our DUP representatives hold modest services there in remembrance. Each St Patrick's Day, services are organised at Saul and Down Cathedral to mark the occasion. For me, that reverence is so important.

We need to insert a little honesty about some of the events. Unfortunately, many St Patrick's Day events in the area are far from solemn or commemorative. Since I was a child, we have long kept out of the way of many of the activities. Over many years, the parade in Downpatrick was especially unwelcoming for those from a unionist background. The council-funded festivities were hostile for many years, with inappropriate stalls and activities. A lot of sectarian abuse went on, and some of our local councillors faced terrible slurs. Complaints were made repeatedly, but until we move forward from that and see the occasion as inclusive and have the confidence to work together on it, not all of us can promote it.

Last year, it was good to see more bands of Ulster-Scots heritage in the Downpatrick and Belfast St Patrick's Day parades. That is a step in the right direction. I hope that such visibility at the heart of those parades will go some way to break down barriers and remove some of the hostility that lingers in our local community, but there is a long way to go.

Colin spoke of the potential for more of the experience to be shared. That applies well beyond Downpatrick. In my community in the Mournes, through our local Ulster-Scots group, the Schomberg Society, we enjoy regular events about the history of St Patrick around that time of year. We have a stew night and some dancing and support the tradition of presenting a sprig of shamrock to local veterans, as led on the mainland by the Princess of Wales, the Colonel of the Irish Guards, setting off the traditions that we are all proud to watch.

Newry, Mourne and Down District Council covers a huge area, and some of the local provision for tourism is disappointing. The council has dropped support for local attractions such as the Mourne Mountains, potentially losing the city deal money around the same, and cancelling things such as the Newcastle Festival of Flight. It is no surprise that the events in Downpatrick do not live up to their potential. Anything that the Minister can do would be welcome. As Cathy said, there is huge potential to be unlocked, and, if leadership could come from the Minister's Department or anywhere else, it would be so welcome. However, this is about more than communities; it is also about tourism and a boost for the local economy. A cross-section of work could be done to boost the experience for the people in Downpatrick.

I support any work to promote St Patrick: Down Cathedral, the Saint Patrick Centre and St Patrick's Trail, which encompasses more of the story across Northern Ireland, reaching right down into Armagh. There is huge potential in our heritage. As Colin said, Downpatrick, as the county town, often fails to receive what it deserves. It fails to receive investment, promotion and recognition. We have an opportunity to do so much more. As others have said, there is huge potential to be unlocked, and, if we all work together with a collective vision, we could deliver so much more for Northern Ireland.

Mr Beattie: This is outside my patch, so I might do a little bit of promotion for somewhere else. Thank you, Colin, for bringing this forward: your enthusiasm is infectious, and you have a story to tell.

St Patrick is an important religious and cultural figure. The St Patrick story travels the centuries in various guises. As a man with a military background, I have celebrated St Patrick's Day my whole life. It blends seamlessly my identity, my culture and my military traditions. I have celebrated St Patrick's Day across the globe: from the deserts of Iraq and Kuwait, to the green zone in Afghanistan and the north German plains. I even celebrated it at the Maifeld in Berlin, when it was still divided, which is where Hitler used to hold his rallies. Interestingly, in the military, you celebrate St Patrick's Day in a slightly different way. We have a thing called "gunfire" on St Patrick's Day: you are woken up with whiskey and tea and forced to drink it first thing in the morning. Then, you go out on parade, where you are presented with your shamrock. It is a tradition, but we also remember the reason why we do it, so it is not just a tradition for the sake of it.

I have always been struck that, although we are the home of St Patrick, we decant out of here every year. All the great and the good — I have done this as well — disappear from their homes, the area where St Patrick came from, and head to the United States. We find ourselves in Washington, which, I have to say, puts on a great show. An awful lot of time, effort and money is put into St Patrick's Day in Washington and elsewhere. You have to ask yourself this question: why not do that here? Why not have them all come to us? Why not have the Taoiseach or the president come to Downpatrick or Armagh? Why not have the ambition to say, "Let's bring them all here, because we can do it"? Do you know what? This is the home of St Patrick. Unfortunately, by all going to the United States, we have allowed a bit a Disneyfication of St Patrick's Day to happen, which is sad.

We all know that, from Slemish to Armagh to Saul Church in Downpatrick, St Patrick covers great swathes of Northern Ireland. He is revered across the country and on both sides of the border. St Patrick has huge meaning for Downpatrick in respect of religious identity, cultural identity, family, and tourism — all things that could and should be tapped into in Downpatrick. St Patrick's grave is marked by a massive granite stone, I believe. I have not been to the site — isn't that a shame — but I am definitely going to go. It is a place of quiet pilgrimage that draws visitors from across the globe. We already have a place that people can go to and say, "This is the burial site of St Patrick". We already have the starting point. What we now need is the enthusiasm, funding and organisation to bring people here. St Patrick's mission began at Slemish Mountain and ended in Downpatrick. It is there, in the shadow of his tomb, that history, faith, Irish identity and British identity meet. That is important.

Diane is right: sometimes, we allow people to capture St Patrick's Day and drag it away, when it should belong to us all. We see that with various other things as well, not just St Patrick's Day. However, there needs to be a real sense that we can all get together and celebrate our patron saint on an incredibly important day. If we can do that in Downpatrick or Armagh, bringing people from across the globe to us, it will show that we have a real confidence in what we have to offer. I would genuinely like us, on St Patrick's Day, not to leave here to see green rivers in New York, Boston or Washington but to bring people to Downpatrick to see what we have to offer.

Mr Harvey: I thank Mr McGrath for securing today's Adjournment debate. In bringing the matter to the House, he has provided me with an opportunity to approach the development of St Patrick's Day in Downpatrick from a slightly different angle. Whilst I appreciate the understandable focus on the carnival celebrations that are now synonymous with St Patrick's Day in Downpatrick and the economic and cultural benefits that flow from them, I want briefly to highlight the importance of and need for greater education, promotion and awareness around the person and work of the patron saint of Ireland and the necessity of developing those aspects of St Patrick's Day.

For many, St Patrick's Day represents an opportunity to drown the proverbial shamrock, to celebrate all things green or to revel in a day of carefree festivity. The uncomfortable reality that should be acknowledged, however, is that only a few have a little, or any, knowledge of who Patrick was, what he achieved or the impact that he had on the history of this island. Limited educational curriculum coverage, societal apathy and attempts to airbrush the message that Patrick proclaimed have been instrumental in our reaching that reality. From kidnapping and enslavement in Ireland, through working as a shepherd, to spiritual awakening and return to this island as a Christian missionary, the story of Patrick and the message of faith that he brought forever changed this island and its people. It is a shared history that we can all acknowledge, if not be proud of, and that should be told and developed in Downpatrick and elsewhere. Each year, I join party colleagues on the morning of 17 March to lay floral tributes at the burial site before enjoying the annual service of celebration of the life and legacy of Patrick at Down cathedral. It is vital that meaningful events such as that are not forgotten in any attempts to further develop Downpatrick's celebration of Patrick.

Of course, Downpatrick remains the symbolic anchor that links the Ireland of today and its people with its earliest Christian roots. It is therefore right that Downpatrick claims Patrick as its own. Traditionally identified as the place of his death and burial in the 5th century, the grounds of Down cathedral continue to attract tourists and pilgrims alike in the development of St Patrick's Day in the area. It is vital that the opportunity is taken to develop our collective awareness of what and who we are celebrating and to enter into the simplicity and humility that is evidenced throughout Patrick's writing. There is immense untapped potential for Downpatrick to harness for tourism and economic benefit the worldwide appeal that St Patrick's Day represents . In equal measure, there exists an untapped shared history of a man and a message that have made this island what it is today. I trust that, in developing the future of St Patrick's Day in the town, we will give thought to the importance of acknowledging both who and what we are celebrating.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, you have 10 minutes.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank Mr McGrath for securing the debate today. It has fallen to me to respond, but, as the Member and others have rightly pointed out, achieving what he and others have set out today will not simply be a matter for my Department, because other partners will also take responsibility for ensuring that we get this opportunity to where it needs to be. I thank the Member for his passion for the subject. He, rightly, mentioned the council — I do not think that he has just as much enthusiasm for the council as he does for St Patrick's Day and Downpatrick — but it is right that we in the Chamber put focus on that subject today.

The development of St Patrick's Day across Northern Ireland, and particularly in Downpatrick, matters greatly to local people and to future opportunities in the town. We know that Downpatrick is a place of strong identity and deep cultural meaning. The connection with St Patrick is well known, but the key issue for us today is how that story is told, shared and sustained. The development of the St Patrick's Day celebrations and the long-term regeneration of the town are not separate issues. They are closely connected and should be progressed together, if Downpatrick is to thrive. St Patrick's story is not a story for just one day in March, of course, and, if the Member who secured the Adjournment debate does not mind me saying so, it is not a story for just Downpatrick, either. Slemish will soon be in the East Antrim constituency, and there are significant connections there that, I am sure, all Members will want us to explore and celebrate. The focus of today, however, is Downpatrick.

St Patrick's story is not just for one day. It is a shared story that belongs to everyone and that can be expressed throughout the year through culture, creativity and community participation. Music, dance, language, storytelling and the other arts play a vital role in bringing that story to life. My Department supports that cultural activity through a range of programmes that are delivered by our arm's-length bodies, in partnership with the council. With support from the Arts Council, artists and organisations across the Newry, Mourne and Down council area contribute to cultural activity that underpins St Patrick's Day and supports year-round engagement. Down Community Arts, a funded client of the Arts Council, plays a particularly important role in supporting the parade and wider celebrations, working with local groups, engaging rural communities and delivering cross-community cultural activity that builds not only pride but participation. My Department also supports local festivals through the community festivals fund, which match-funds programmes delivered by councils to support community-led events. That fund was established in recognition of the positive contribution that local festivals make to communities. In the past year, my Department allocated £36,000 to the council through the community festivals fund, which has been match-funded by the council.

Not all the support that the Department for Communities provides comes in the form of funding. Initiatives that are linked to St Patrick's Day in Downpatrick must be multidimensional and strongly rooted in storytelling, learning and participation. They depend on skilled people, active organisations and the ability to connect heritage, creativity and community in meaningful ways. That is why I introduced the heritage, culture and creativity programme. The programme will bring forward new policies for the arts, historic environment and museums and libraries. Together, those policies will provide a coherent cultural framework to strengthen how our heritage and stories are protected, promoted and sustained. I am pleased to say that the preparation of the policies is well advanced and that the first public consultation is already open. I encourage all those with an interest to participate.

Downpatrick benefits from a strong year-round cultural offering. There are accredited museums, such as Down County Museum and the Downpatrick and County Down Railway, alongside language and cultural organisations that reflect the Irish and Ulster-Scots traditions. Those assets help to animate the town, to support education and, importantly, to encourage repeat visits. That cultural activity sits alongside the town's historic environment. Through its historical environment division, my Department maintains a number of state care monuments in and around Downpatrick. Those sites form an important part of the town's sense of place and visitor appeal, and my Department remains fully committed to their care, conservation and presentation for future generations.

Successful events can flourish only when the surrounding environment is safe, accessible and attractive. That is why sustained regeneration investment and sensitive place-making is so important in Downpatrick. In February 2025, I announced £2·5 million of funding, alongside £400,000 from the council, for a major public realm scheme at Church Street and De Courcy Place. That investment is improving surfaces, lighting, accessibility and connectivity and is strengthening the core of the town centre as a place to visit and in which to do business. Since September 2025, my Department has invested £493,000 in the redevelopment of the Dunleath urban sports park. That project has delivered a new, high-quality space that is proving to be hugely popular. It promotes health and well-being, encourages active lifestyles and draws more people into the town centre, supporting footfall and, I hope, confidence.

The Irish Street development scheme is central to that long-term vision. The proposals represent a major and comprehensive development scheme that I plan to take to the market. The intention is to attract public-sector and private-sector investment in order to deliver a transformational mixed-use development. The vision includes a new hotel, new homes, new commercial space and high-quality shared public space. Taken together, those elements would significantly increase footfall, strengthen the daytime and evening economy and provide real support for local businesses, including during major events such as St Patrick's Day.

Progress in Downpatrick has also been supported by strong local leadership through the Downpatrick regeneration working group, which has shaped the Downpatrick living high streets framework, a place-based approach that aligns regeneration investment with cultural activity and how the town centre is used. My Department will continue to work with the working group, stakeholders and the council to deliver on the framework.

I hope that Members can see today how my Department is supporting work in connection with the regeneration of the town to ensure that we set the scene for how the event on St Patrick's Day and events around it can be supported.

Members raised a number of other points today, and I am happy to address some of them now. I am happy to raise with colleagues in the Executive Office the T:BUC funding that Mr McGrath mentioned. I assure him and Cathy Mason, who asked me to use every tool that we have to help in that area, that I certainly commit to doing that. Alongside the Department for the Economy, Tourism NI, the council and other stakeholders, we are more than happy to provide support in order to make sure that we play our part.

Andrew McMurray asked me to take a wee trip to Downpatrick. I am also more than happy to do that. It seems as though, every time that I respond to an Adjournment debate in the House, I end up getting invitations. In the previous Adjournment debate, I agreed to visit Newry and Armagh, so I am more than happy to visit Downpatrick, too. You can organise a tour, Andrew. I am sure that we can get a bus and all go together. I am more than happy to do that and to ensure that we highlight what is on offer and get that out to a wider audience.

I appreciate what Diane Forsythe said about ensuring that we maximise the appeal and deal with the unsavoury elements that were there in the past and had put people off. What has come through in today's debate is that we should all be able to get behind St Patrick's Day. Yes, we may come from different perspectives, but all of us have an interest in it and want to ensure that we promote it.

I commend Harry Harvey for his contribution in rightly outlining the real message of St Patrick and the shared history that we have. I also note Mr Beattie's comments. I do not know whether we will be able to get the hundreds of people whom we engage with in the United States over here, but, certainly, St Patrick's Day is an opportunity for us to tell people about who we are. We should use that for the benefit of everybody in Northern Ireland.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed, Minister, and thank you, everybody, for the debate. I pass on my regards to everybody. Next St Patrick's Day, 17 March, please come and join us at the foot of Slemish mountain as the sun rises and the mist passes. We would be delighted if we saw you there. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for that.