Official Report: Monday 29 June 2026
The Assembly met at 12:00 pm (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Blair] in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes' silence.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Insolvency (Amendment) Bill has received Royal Assent. The Insolvency (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2026 became law on 24 June 2026. It is chapter 6.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Deirdre Hargey has been given leave to make a statement on further revelations about inappropriate behaviour by Jeffrey Donaldson and failures to address those, which fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. If other Members wish to be called, they should rise in their place and continue to do so. All Members who are called will have up to three minutes to speak on the subject. I remind Members that interventions are not permitted, and I will not take any points of order on this or any other matter until this item of business has finished.
Miss Hargey: One week ago today, Jeffrey Donaldson was found guilty of 18 child sexual offences, including rape. That conviction was made possible only by the strength and resilience of the two victims who came forward and reported the abuse. Donaldson was an abuser. He abused children, but he also abused his position in politics and faith. Involved in the most sensitive of political negotiations, with access to political power and influence, how was an abuser able to rise to the highest ranks of political office as an MLA and an MP at Westminster and to become the leader of the largest unionist party, the DUP?
Since the court case, more shocking information has come to light regarding a pattern of behaviour that was kept hidden from the public by his colleagues, who worked with him, socialised with him, promoted him and followed him. They now say that they knew about his behaviour, but, crucially, they did nothing to expose his inappropriate hypocrisy and double life. The 'Spotlight' programme and other reports have shown that senior members of the DUP — its most senior figures, including the then leader, Edwin Poots — were aware of serious issues and allegations about his behaviour — behaviour that compromised him and raised serious questions about his character. Not only were those serious red flags ignored but, incredibly, Donaldson was elected as DUP leader — the leader of unionism — and protected by a culture of cover-up and promoted as a paragon of morality. We need to hear how that happened, given that the truth was very different.
His abuse has caused lasting hurt and trauma to his victims. His double standards, including his condemnation of and opposition to equality and rights for our LGBTQ+ citizens, have caused real harm to others. The revelations about his double life expose the staggering hypocrisy of the DUP's moral facade. We need to know whether failing to act sooner left more vulnerable people at risk.
There are also serious questions to answer for others in positions of authority and power in religious institutions to which the allegations of abuse were disclosed. Why were those allegations not reported to the authorities? Why was the victim placed in front of the perpetrator? Moreover, questions must be asked of policing and of the British Government and their intelligence agencies. Donaldson was a member of the Privy Council. He had access to British Prime Ministers and highly classified material. It is therefore not credible to suggest that the intelligence agencies were blind to his compromised double standards and double life.
Those questions demand answers from the DUP leadership. They demand answers in the House from the deputy First Minister, who was closely associated with Donaldson. They demand explanations from every one of his colleagues who sits muted on the foreign Benches. The public have a right to know —
Mr O'Toole: Jeffrey Donaldson is an abuser, and he — no one else — is responsible for his abuse. His victims have experienced pain that few of us can imagine and shown courage that few of us would be capable of. Although Donaldson alone is culpable for his actions, all institutions are responsible for protecting vulnerable people. Abusers can manipulate in any organisation. That is why safeguarding policies exist and need to be followed, and it is why further revelations about Donaldson's actions must be explained and investigated.
'Spotlight' and the 'Belfast Telegraph' have reported that a young woman complained of being exploited by the former DUP leader. The allegations were serious enough for the former MP and MLA for North Antrim to describe that young woman as a "victim" of Donaldson and pass her complaint on to the then party leader, who is now the Speaker. We are told that that woman's wishes were followed up on but not whether a safeguarding policy was followed or whether the matter was referred to the police. Given, as I said, that the party leader in question is now the Speaker of the Assembly, it is of the utmost importance that urgent and specific clarity be brought to the matter. What was the nature of the complaint? What safeguarding policy was followed? What action was taken? The convention in the House is that we do not challenge the Chair, but such conventions pale in comparison to questions of safeguarding, so I ask for clarity on what processes were followed, and, yes, that goes for the DUP more broadly. An internal review will not be enough, given the gravity of the issues. We also need to understand whether any concerns were raised about Jeffrey Donaldson when he was an MLA, including when he served as a junior Minister with specific responsibilities for young people. The public must have confidence that those of us who wield power are following safeguarding processes.
Distinct from specific questions of safeguarding is the issue of divergence between the public and the private. That also touches on public confidence. To be clear, I do not believe that public figures should have their lawful private lives policed when it comes to sexual conduct or alcohol intake. I am not a moralist. I do not seek to sit in judgement of others or to constrain others' private lives. The DUP does, however, and has done for all its existence. It is of no consequence to me what people do privately, so long as it is legal and consensual, but it becomes a matter of public interest when a party political leader whose party is blocking basic rights for gay people and blocking relationships and sexuality education (RSE) for young people is engaged in grotesquely hypocritical conduct.
There is a whole range of questions that need to be answered. We have scarcely time to touch on them in the short time available today. One such question concerns the defamation regime in Northern Ireland. We need to understand whether it serves to protect powerful people here. At the heart of this, however, is the fact that the DUP needs to reflect on what has happened —
Mr O'Toole: — what actions have and have not been taken.
Miss McIlveen: The guilty verdicts returned against Jeffrey Donaldson one week ago represented justice being delivered following the most serious and disturbing of criminal offences. No sentence can undo the harm that has been caused, but, at least, the victims can know that the truth has prevailed and the law has taken its course. Our thoughts remain with the victims and their families. For the courage that they demonstrated in coming forward and the strength that they showed throughout a lengthy and traumatic legal process, they deserve the respect of the entire House and the wider public.
When Jeffrey Donaldson was first charged, the Democratic Unionist Party acted immediately, because we believe in the rule of law and in allowing criminal proceedings to take their proper course. In recent days, further allegations regarding inappropriate behaviour have emerged, and there have been suggestions that others may have been aware of aspects of that behaviour. Those matters are deeply concerning. That is precisely why our party leadership has commenced the process of commissioning a specialised independent review. We intend to follow the facts, wherever they lead.
We could seek to deflect and to use today's debate to remind people of how Sinn Féin and the First Minister dealt with the McMonagle conviction or the scandal regarding Gerry Adams's brother Liam — about the cover-up and protection that was given to them. Indeed, the mover of the Matter of the Day is in no place to talk about truth and transparency: we all remember her timely trip to the toilet in Magennis's bar. Before seeking to occupy the moral high ground, others would do well to reflect on their own records. The DUP is clear that, when legitimate questions are raised, they must be answered. Openness, not evasion, is the only way to rebuild public confidence. We will not deflect, hide or shrink from scrutiny. We will follow the facts wherever they lead, because that is what victims deserve and what the people of Northern Ireland have every right to expect.
Mrs Long: This is about victims: two women who had the courage to come forward. I trust the fact that they got a measure of justice last week will encourage others to come forward and give them confidence in the belief that, irrespective of who their abuser is or how historical the abuse is, there can still be justice for victims.
Since that, it has become apparent that senior members of the DUP were made aware of other potential victims. While it should always be for an individual victim to decide whether to pursue a criminal prosecution, that does not absolve those who knew of those cases of their safeguarding responsibilities. Some of those people are still in high office in politics, including as Speaker of the Assembly. Questions about what was known, when it was known and what actions were taken must be asked and answered transparently. From the 'Spotlight' programme, it appears that, by people's own admission, no action was taken in those cases.
There are questions not only for political parties but religious and faith-based organisations. Serious disclosures were made to people in pastoral positions, and, again, nothing was done to safeguard the victims or other vulnerable people. It is long past time that faith-based counselling was properly regulated and subject to the same standards as other counselling, including in respect of safeguarding.
This also raises again the issue that relationships and sexuality education in Northern Ireland is fundamentally flawed. The fact that a victim came forward and said that could not even find the words to describe what had been done to her because she was not aware that it was as wrong as it was represents a failure of relationships and sexuality education.
Jeffrey Donaldson is not the first and will not be the last closeted gay or homosexual person to have felt the need to live a closeted life because of the sanctimonious, puritanical and judgemental environment that has been fostered in this place by politicians and religious institutions. That is separate and distinct, however, from accusations of sexual assault and paedophilia. Let us never conflate the two, because that trope has been used to damage many people whose sexuality is private and their own business and who are entirely engaged with consenting adults, as is right. We cannot create and the DUP should not contribute to the kind of repressive environment where people are fearful of being open about their sexual orientation on the basis that, even when they come to the House —
Mrs Long: — appalling things are said and done —
Mrs Long: — on a homophobic basis and are rarely challenged.
Mr Burrows: I praise again the victims who gave evidence against Jeffrey Donaldson, and I hope that it sends a message to everyone in our society that, no matter who you are, you can be held to account. It is the time for higher standards of integrity and honesty in our politics, and I hope that the rest of the Members join in my call for forfeiture mechanisms to be put into our pension scheme so that those who are convicted of sexual crimes can have their pension stripped from them. It is an abiding scandal that Jeffrey Donaldson will get up to £60,000 a year in prison having been convicted of rape and that, if anything happens to him, the survivor's pension will go to the lady who aided and abetted that rape. That has to end. There are people who are having their assets stripped so that they can pay for nursing homes and care homes at the end of their life, having done the right thing for their whole life. That needs to be addressed.
There are two aspects to this. There is the criminality of Jeffrey Donaldson. I take it in good faith, unless it is proved otherwise, that nobody knew that he was abusing those young girls. However, his behaviour was in plain sight, it seems. He was leading a double life. He was hypocritical. He was telling people to do as he said, not do as he did. That cannot be acceptable. It cannot be acceptable that that was not brought to the attention of the electorate. It cannot be acceptable that he was a blackmail risk in the United Kingdom. If he was acting in the way that was portrayed in the 'Spotlight' programme, he was extremely vulnerable to anyone trying to extort him or make him vulnerable to any form of blackmail. That needs to be addressed.
If someone makes an allegation of sexual assault or any other crime against anybody, there is not just a responsibility to deal with it criminally, if the victim wishes, but a safeguarding responsibility that falls on any organisation. It is unforgivable if safeguarding was not discharged in the case where allegations were made.
The need for a full inquiry into this is so important that I am calling on the Government. I have written to the Prime Minister today. We need a proper inquiry. This goes to the heart of what aspects of the Church knew, what politicians knew and what political parties knew; indeed, there is an allegation about what different police services knew or what the security services knew. Therefore, we need facts. We need to make sure that whoever is doing that review has access to all of the information and material. We need to learn lessons here. Someone who was a senior parliamentarian, who was knighted, who was on the Privy Council and who had grace and favour and access was acting in a way that would see you thrown out of a job in Tesco. There can be no excuse for his getting away with that.
My thoughts are with the victim. This needs to be a defining moment in our politics. I will do my own rapid review in our party if we need to look at things, but the Prime Minister needs to grip this. This was a privy counsellor and a senior politician. People in Westminster will have seen this behaviour, and it cuts across all parties. We need a proper inquiry, and we need it now.
Mr Gaston: The revelations that have come to light since dirty Donaldson's conviction and the red flags that his colleagues ignored raise profound and troubling questions for the DUP, but for Sinn Féin generally and Deirdre Hargey in particular to come to the Chamber and pontificate about safeguarding is utter hypocrisy. There was not much safeguarding the night that Miss Hargey hid in the toilet as Robert McCartney was being murdered.
If there is one thing that we must learn from this sad and vile tragedy, it is that we must listen to victims. I would like to put on record some facts that have been drawn to my attention by two victims of abuse in the past 24 hours. Gerry Adams covered up his father's abuse and ensured that he was given a full republican funeral. He covered up his brother's abuse of his niece for years. Adams knew —
Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, but it is important that we look at those who have brought forward the Matter of the Day. They are more than willing to direct the eye and point the finger —
Mr Gaston: — at other people, who deserve to have the eye directed at them, but they have to look through the prism of what they have done in their past.
Today, we heard from Miss Hargey that a victim should not be forced to face their abuser. That is exactly what the IRA did to Máiría Cahill.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Gaston, for the third time, I ask you to address the Matter of the Day. The topic is abundantly clear. If you cannot address it, desist, and we will move on.
Mr Gaston: Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you very much. I take your guidance.
Let us look at the red flags that were missed. A victim came forward to the former MP for North Antrim Mr Paisley. The concerns raised were serious enough for Mr Paisley to send a text message to somebody outside his party. My question to the Democratic Unionist Party is this: who else was that text message shared with? Who else was leant on when it came to the leadership race, and was it used then? It is clear from the timeline of events that, back in March 2023, Donaldson was compromised. There needs to be a full and transparent explanation of who knew what, when they knew it and, indeed, when that information was passed among and talked about within the party.
I have serious concerns and reservations when it comes to safeguarding. We all have to look at this as something that requires a victim-centred approach, but there are parties sitting in the Chamber that do that only when it suits. Those who tabled this special Matter of the Day turned a blind eye when it suited them. I think of all victims: I think of Máiría Cahill and those who suffered at the hands of Sinn Féin. The hypocrisy that Sinn Féin has shown cannot be let slide. I pay tribute to the victims of Jeffrey Donaldson. Sadly, I believe that more will come forward as a result of the red flags that were missed. He was allowed to live a double life. I hope that —
Mr Gaston: — in future, that will not be allowed —
Mr Gaston: — to happen with anyone else in political life.
Ms Sheerin: I thank my colleague Deirdre Hargey for bringing this matter before the House. It is a matter of huge public interest. Anyone who knows Deirdre knows that she has always been and is still a powerful advocate for the most vulnerable, including all who have been subject to abuse.
Last week, the news that Jeffrey Donaldson had been found guilty of the sexual abuse of children, including rape, shocked and horrified us all. The details of his crimes are disgusting and invoke profound sympathy for the brave women who had the tenacity to tell their story in court. None of us can imagine how they feel and what they have gone through, but we send them our sincere support and respect. What has made their ordeal even more disturbing is the level of hypocrisy involved. For many years, Donaldson used his position of power to abuse and to escape justice. He presented himself as a role model. We now know that that was bogus and that his public persona was a deception. He deployed his faith not only to cover his horrific behaviour but to promote a false and harmful morality in, as others have said, the most sanctimonious of manners.
In the days since the guilty verdict, many in the DUP have admitted that they knew that Donaldson was not what he pretended to be. It is now obvious that many at the most senior levels of the DUP leadership, including former leader Edwin Poots, were aware of the alarmingly inappropriate behaviour by Donaldson, yet they did nothing. Knowing about his deceit and deception, his double life and double standards, the DUP elected him as its leader. That decision defies any reasonable or rational explanation.
Mr Tennyson: Jeffrey Donaldson and Jeffrey Donaldson alone is responsible for his heinous abuse. We know that abusers lurk in the shadows and that this could have befallen any organisation, community or political party. The allegations that came to light in the 'Spotlight' documentary, however, go beyond the actions of one individual. It is now clear that senior members of the DUP were aware of other potential victims of exploitation and abuse, and that rather than bring those allegations to the attention of the authorities, they appeared to use them for party political purposes. That raises profound questions, including for the Speaker of the Assembly, that go to the heart of public confidence in these institutions and political parties. Those who have come forward only now, saying that they are not surprised or that they always suspected that something was wrong, simply to use this as part of a grudge match and settle old scores, should hang their heads in shame, as should those who have attempted to use this matter for party political point-scoring in the Chamber today.
We must not conflate salacious elements of Jeffrey Donaldson's private life with the fact that he was a paedophile and a predator. That trope has been tried and tested, and has done untold harm to members of our LGBTQ+ community. I do not care whether Jeffrey Donaldson visited a gay sauna or projectile vomited over the Mayor of Beijing. What I do care about is the gross hypocrisy that those issues have exposed. Scandal after scandal has shown that those who push puritanical, sanctimonious and hostile rhetoric towards the LGBTQ+ community are guilty of nauseating hypocrisy. All Members, including those in the DUP, should reflect on that, on the harm caused, apologise to the LGBTQ+ community and change course.
This must be a turning point not just for the parties in the Chamber but for society. It is clear that the two victims at the centre of the original case were grossly failed, and it is through their bravery that these issues were brought into the light. We owe it to them to ensure that, never again, will an institution be prioritised over the protection of victims and to make policy change to ensure that faith-based counselling is regulated, safeguarding procedures are followed and, importantly, that reforms are made to our RSE system so that, never again, will a child or young person not have the words or not know where to turn when they are a victim of abuse. That is the least that we owe the victims at the centre of this case.
Mr Butler: This has to be one of the most difficult topics that any of us will ever speak on because we have to be incredibly careful with our words so that we do not deflect from the pain and horror that was inflicted on the victims in this case, and in every case of sexual violence against women, girls and boys.
After last week's judgement on Jeffrey Donaldson and the horrific acts for which he was found guilty, we must consider recent revelations about inappropriate behaviour and the way that concerns were raised and handled, and the questions that were asked and, perhaps, brushed aside. That does not reside only with other political parties, however. It concerns how the PSNI acted, how things happened in Westminster and how the statutory agencies and counselling services, whether faith-based or not, reacted. Why is that important? It is important because we must not revisit the issue in the House. It is a stain on every political party.
First, at every juncture, our focus must be on the victims, who are actually survivors. They deserve to be heard, supported and taken seriously from the moment they raise concerns. Secondly, we need accountability. When warnings or complaints are made, the public deserves to know how they were handled and whether the processes were fit for purpose. If they were not, we all must learn from that. Thirdly, this is about safeguarding. No organisation, including political parties, should treat safeguarding as optional. That should also be the case in a church or other faith setting, and I say that as a person of faith. Those should be places where children and adults are most safe and secure. Procedures must be clear, enforced and acted on without delay. Fourthly, public trust is at stake. Confidence in our institutions depends on transparency and the principle that no one is above scrutiny, regardless of position or status. At times, the rank hypocrisy in this place is nauseating, and it has been nauseating to many victims over decades. Finally, we must recognise the need for culture change, whereby inappropriate behaviour is challenged early, whistle-blowers are protected and silence or deference to power is never allowed to override integrity. That is what rebuilding trust requires: truth, accountability and a system that puts people before reputation.
I say one thing in response to Miss Hargey: Mr Donaldson was not the leader of unionism; he did not lead my party.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): If Members wish to be called to make a statement, they should indicate that by rising in their place. Those Members who are called will have up to three minutes to make their statement. I remind Members that interventions are not permitted. I will not take points of order on this or any other matter until the item of business has finished.
Ms Kimmins: I will speak in solidarity with the workers at Haldane Fisher in Newry who have almost completed their third week of industrial action at the site. I recently met the workers on the picket line.
Haldane Fisher is an institution in Newry — a leader in the building industry — to which many of the workers on the picket lines have given decades of service. In fact, many of those workers, some of whom have worked there for over 40 years, say that they had never had to take industrial action. That is telling about the situation that they find themselves in. They feel that they have no other choice and that industrial action is, indeed, a last resort.
My message to senior management at Haldane Fisher today is this: come to the table; engage with the union; support the workers; and come to a conclusion that will achieve a positive outcome for workers and the organisation. No one wants to be in such a situation. The workers deserve fair pay and an outcome that is proportionate to what they are facing. I say, "Solidarity" to the workers. I respect their decision to take action, but I hope that a resolution can be found as soon as possible.
Mrs Little-Pengelly: This week, I will travel to France to pay my respects to all those who fought and the many who fell at the Battle of the Somme as we mark its 110th anniversary.
From across Northern Ireland, generations have served their country. They have stood against tyranny, defended democracy, provided humanitarian aid in times of crisis and represented the very best of this place. Many of the men — the boys — who fought at the Somme were ordinary sons, fathers, brothers and friends: tens of thousands of ordinary men and boys who lived through a truly extraordinary thing. They fought for our freedoms. They fought against aggression. They fought, and many, many died, in the defence of others. Such courage and sacrifice deserve not only our gratitude but our enduring support.
"No greater love hath a man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends".
One of the men who fought was James Sandford, my great-grandfather. He fought, he survived, he went on to fight again, and he was seriously injured in another battle. I am deeply proud of him, and I am proud of all those who stepped forward with such honour in the face of the horror of that war. Another was Robert Hillen, who, aged just 20, lost his life on the first day of the Somme. He was my great-grandmother Margaret's brother. The 36th (Ulster) Division and so many others suffered so many thousands of casualties on that first day.
At a time when the world remains uncertain and when freedom cannot be taken for granted, we are reminded that the security that we enjoy today was secured through the dedication and bravery of others. When I stand there this week, looking at the gravestones of so many who made the ultimate sacrifice to defend our freedom, I will also remember — we must always remember — the responsibility that we carry forward. Remembrance is not only about honouring the past; it is about shaping the future. It is about ensuring that the sacrifice of those young men who gave everything that they had and that they might have become was not in vain. Their legacy lives on in the freedoms that we enjoy, the values that we uphold and the choices that we make as a society.
It falls to us all to be worthy of that sacrifice. We must stand firm for peace, defend democracy and ensure that, even in the darkest of times, we never forget the cost paid for the world, the peace and the freedom that we so often take for granted.
Ms Bradshaw: This time last year, the First Minister and the deputy First Minister received research reports on clerical child sexual abuse. Unfortunately, 12 months on, questions remain about what has been done with the research and what actions have been or are being taken. Last week's revelations are only the most recent in a series that shows the clear and obvious necessity for urgent and transparent action on safeguarding in faith-based settings.
Members will recall that the Executive Office commissioned three separate reports to examine victims' experiences, historical record-keeping and safeguarding practices in religious organisations. I am not coming at the issue as a result of last week's revelations. On 27 January this year, we debated a motion on the matter in the Chamber, and assurances were given that we would see progress shortly. At the end of May, the Committee for the Executive Office demanded the release of the reports, but we have not seen them. My most recent public call for their publication was just three weeks ago.
Frankly, victims and survivors have waited long enough. They have made clear their desire to see the publicly funded reports published. It is outrageous that they should have to wait a second longer. Endless delay does nothing for victims and survivors, who should be central to the process. That is hardly the trauma-informed approach that we in the Assembly have promised them. They and we need to hear how the First Minister and the deputy First Minister have decided to proceed, including whether there will be a public inquiry. Victims and survivors have made the case for such an investigation to look at the extent of systemic institutional cover-up, the practice of the movement of perpetrators, the failures to report abuse and the use of secrecy agreements. What about the historical policing response, including refusals to take statements and the lack of insight into institutional complicity? That has to be interrogated as well.
Other questions remain, such as whether regulatory changes will be put in place to provide independent oversight of Church safeguarding measures to stop abuse happening now and in the future, because we know that such abuse is not just historical but continues today. In comparison, even the simple question of whether specialist support services similar to those accessible by victims of historical institutional abuse and mother-and-baby institutions will be put in place for victims and survivors of clerical child sexual abuse remains unanswered.
We have to be clear that a failure to see action in the area a full year on from receipt of the research will be looked on as —
Mr Nesbitt: Members will be aware of the sad, sudden and untimely passing of Dr Tom Frawley CBE, the chair of the Western Health and Social Care Trust. Tom had a long and extremely distinguished career as a public servant that began in the health service. I am told that he became the youngest person ever to be appointed as chief executive of any public body throughout the United Kingdom when he became CEO of the Western Health and Social Services Board. After that, he was both the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints. Following that, he was vice chair of the Northern Ireland Policing Board, before returning to his first love: the health service.
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)
Tom was ombudsman when I was Chair of what was then the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, which is now the Committee for the Executive Office. He promoted the idea of amalgamating the positions of ombudsman and commissioner, because, depending on which hat he wore, he had significantly different powers, and, unsurprisingly, that was confusing for the public. For Tom, serving the public always came first. That Committee remains the only Committee, I believe, to successfully pass legislation in the Assembly, and I am forever grateful to Tom for understanding how to advise without interfering.
His CV is impressive, but more impressive was Tom the person.
Think public service, wisdom, generosity and courtesy. Think integrity, insight and curiosity, the lack of which is a key criticism of the two public inquiry reports of recent days. I have had the privilege to meet a number of wonderful, passionate and compassionate public service leaders, such as Maurice Hayes, Sir George Quigley and Professor Sir Desmond Rea, who passed recently. Tom Frawley is a member of that elite.
I share this thought: anybody considering a leadership role in public service would do well to study not just his career but the values that Tom Frawley cherished and, more important, how he put them to work for the public good. Be curious. Ask questions not just about what is in place but about how it is working, and ask for proof. Celebrate the success of others more than basking in your own achievements. Adopt a simple policy: be human.
At requiem Mass on Saturday, some of his friends and colleagues reminisced about how he would hold you to account — no excuses — but, when it was over, he was still your friend, courteous and with a wicked sense of humour. My condolences to his wife Marie, children Rachel, Joe and Dan and the broader family. They will miss him the most. I shall miss him selfishly because I do not know where I will find another mentor to match him.
Ms McLaughlin: I want to speak about a deeply disappointing and completely unnecessary decision. Last weekend, Dublin celebrated Pride with the participation of every Irish government Department. More remarkably, last weekend, Pride was celebrated in Hungary. They celebrated diversity, equality and inclusion in the face of growing challenges, yet in Belfast — in Northern Ireland — the Civil Service has quietly withdrawn from Pride without discussion or debate. That sends an entirely wrong message at the wrong moment in time.
I want to make three points. First, the legal justification simply does not stand up to scrutiny. The Civil Service has pointed to what it describes as:
"the current legal and case law context".
However, that appears to rest largely on a High Court judgement in England involving Northumbria Police. That judgement is not binding here. Northern Ireland has its own legal framework and its own equality obligations. For years, the Northern Ireland Civil Service took part in Pride because it recognised that it was an inclusive employer, committed to supporting all its staff and demonstrating those values publicly. Nothing has changed fundamentally in Northern Ireland to justify abandoning that position.
Secondly, accountability matters, as we know. The Civil Service does not decide government policy; Ministers do. The Minister of Finance has responsibility for the Northern Ireland Civil Service. This is ultimately a policy decision and, with that, comes political responsibility. I ask Minister O'Dowd to look at that decision again and, please, reverse it.
Finally, this is about the kind of society that we want to build. Government should never be used to impose a particular moral or religious world view on everyone else. Our role is to serve citizens equally regardless of who they are or whom they love. Too often, in this place, we have seen equality treated as something to be resisted rather than embraced. We should have moved beyond that by now. LGBTQ+ people are part of every community across Northern Ireland. They contribute to our economy, our public services and our civic life. They deserve to know that their Civil Service stands with them, not that it steps back when doing so becomes politically difficult.
Pride has always been about visibility, dignity and inclusion. The Northern Ireland Civil Service should be there, proudly demonstrating that those values matter. I hope that the Minister shows leadership, reverses that action and ensures that the Civil Service once again stands alongside our communities, whom it exists to serve.
Ms Reilly: I want to speak about a remarkable little four-year-old girl from my West Belfast constituency called Ciarla Herron. Ciarla is a bright, happy and determined wee girl whom I recently had the opportunity to meet at one of her fundraisers. Like any four-year-old, she just wants to play with her friends and siblings. She wants to learn and do everything that comes with being a child of four years old.
Ciarla was born with a rare form of cerebral palsy that is commonly known as "bilateral cerebral palsy". She uses a Kaye walker, a wheelchair and, sometimes, crutches day by day because she cannot walk or stand unaided. She tires easily and lives with pain in her wee limbs, but she meets every day with courage, resilience and a smile that inspires everyone around her. What stands out most about Ciarla is the determination that she shows every day. She has undergone specialist physiotherapy that has already transformed her strength, confidence and movement. She has completed two intensive therapy programmes and is currently in London going through another extensive round of treatment. With the right support, she has every opportunity to keep progressing. Her dream is simple: she just wants to be able to walk by herself, unaided.
Like too many families, Ciarla's parents have had to travel outside Ireland to access that specialist treatment. Alongside the emotional strain comes the financial pressure of therapy costs, travel, accommodation and time away from home and family life. Families should not have to fundraise simply to give their child the best possible chance. We also have a responsibility here to ask what more we can do so that families are not forced to leave home or shoulder enormous financial burdens to access life-changing therapies for their children such as Ciarla.
Ciarla has captured the hearts of so many people, who have come together to stand behind one little girl and one little family, helping them to continue along that journey. I finish by paying tribute to Ciarla's mummy and daddy, their entire family and everyone who has supported or contributed to her campaign. Most important, I pay a huge tribute to Ciarla herself, who continues with such determination every day just so that she can walk by herself.
Mrs Middleton: I speak on the return of the Maritime Festival to my constituency of Foyle, an event that has rightly become a jewel in the crown of our events calendar. The festival is of immense importance to our city. It brings tens of thousands of visitors to our historic quayside and injects vital revenue into our local hospitality, retail and tourism sectors. It showcases the very best of our warmth and civic pride to the world.
It is precisely because the festival is such a positive and unifying showcase for our city that I must highlight my disappoint at the treatment from some quarters of the presence of the Royal Navy vessel gracing our shores. It is deeply regrettable that a vocal minority attempted to cast a shadow of negativity and intolerance over the event. That opposition is not just tiring; it is completely divorced from the history of Londonderry. We are a city built on maritime heritage. During the darkest days of the Second World War, our city was the vital nerve centre for the Battle of the Atlantic. At the peak of the battle, the Royal Navy base at HMS Ferret hosted tens of thousands of British and Allied servicemen, serving as a shield against tyranny. Let us never forget that it was to the waters of the Foyle that the German U-boat fleet was ordered to sail to offer its historic surrender in May 1945. That pivotal moment in global history happened right on our doorstep, delivered by the courage and strategy of the Royal Navy and its allies.
We are seeing the fantastic development of the new maritime museum at Ebrington Square, a site steeped in naval and military history. I say to those who tried to protest against a visiting ship over the past few days that history cannot be rewritten to suit a narrow political agenda. The stones of Ebrington and the waters of the Foyle bear testament to our true past. True tolerance means respecting all aspects of our shared history, not trying to airbrush out the parts that you find politically inconvenient. The Royal Navy is a vital part of who we are, where we come from and what we have achieved on the global stage.
I commend the organisers of the festival and thank the crew of the visiting vessel for their service. I urge everyone in the House to reject the petty intolerance that seeks to diminish a proud historical legacy.
Mr Baker: On Saturday, I was in Lisburn with a number of my colleagues to take part in a leaflet drop across Lisburn and Lagan Valley to promote our Assembly candidate and councillor Declan Lynch. Declan, his wife and mother and I were all subjected to intimidation and sectarian abuse by a number of loyalists. Some followed us into the shop to ask, "Do you like the flags? Do you like being up here? We know that you come up here. You are not welcome up here". Sadly, they even asked, "Where do you live? We will find out where you live". Then, as we proceeded with the leaflet drop, Declan's mother, his wife and his toddler son were subjected to the vilest sectarian abuse. I cannot say the words in the Chamber, but they were preceded by the word "Fenian". That has all been reported to the police.
The days of no-go areas are over. Every Member of the Assembly must be able to go about their job without threats, intimidation or sectarian abuse. The people responsible for that type of behaviour want to drag us back in time. They want to divide us and want hate and fear to dominate, but they will not win. Sinn Féin has the right to go anywhere to speak to people and work with them to improve their lives. It has the right to work with communities to improve areas and develop community resources and services to make this a better place for all of us, no matter our background, to live and raise our families. We will be told by no one where to go or what we can and cannot do. Those days are over. They are done. We will keep moving forward, and we will not be deterred. Our commitment and that of Declan Lynch is to work for everyone in Lagan Valley, and that is what he will do every day.
I conclude with this: the silence from political leadership in that community is deafening. I see the deputy First Minister in the Chamber: I call on her to condemn the sectarian abuse that a grandmother and mother were subjected to in Lagan Valley on Saturday.
Mr Robinson: As the school year comes to a close, 2026 will see the loss of two high-profile educators in Roe Valley. Those two individuals have given many valuable years of service to the education system.
Marshall Kilgore MBE, principal of Drumachose Primary School in Limavady, will walk out the door for the last time having given over a quarter of a century of service as a principal and spent over 35 years working in primary education. He started his teaching career in 1989 at Londonderry Model Primary School and had been a teaching principal at Donemana Primary School in Strabane before becoming principal of Drumachose . Mr Kilgore is fondly known as the beating heart of the school. He is a man who openly talks about how sport has influenced his life from an early age to the present day. His love of sport has inspired so many others. He has been an incredibly popular head of school and has the respect of many across the education system in the Province. I wish him well and trust that he will enjoy having more time for the sports that he is so deeply fond of, including rugby.
I also pay tribute to Nicola Madden, who steps down as head of Limavady Grammar School having served in that role for a decade. Her educational role began in Dunluce School in Bushmills as head of geography. She then joined Dalriada School in 1998 as a teacher of geography. As an educator, she was deeply involved in the Duke of Edinburgh's Award scheme and coached various junior hockey teams. In her role, she led in high-quality teaching and learning that led to impressive pupil achievements.
While the two individuals led very different schools, they shared a calling: to provide the best education for young people and to inspire those around them. They have been a steady, reassuring presence for generations of children and trusted colleagues to their staff. They leave an enduring legacy: countless pupils began their educational journey under their care. They have guided their schools with distinction, maintaining high academic standards while ensuring that pastoral care remained at the heart of everything that they did. Both understood that education is about so much more than examinations and qualifications; it is about building character, creating opportunities and believing in young people, often before they believe in themselves.
Marshall and Nicola, I hope that you begin your well-earned rest with immense pride in all that you have accomplished. Your schools will undoubtedly miss you, but your legacy will continue through every pupil whose life was enriched because of your years of service. While this is the end of one chapter, it opens the door to exciting new opportunities. I hope that you both have more time to spend with your families and friends, having new adventures, doing long-postponed hobbies and perhaps even having the chance to enjoy a morning without an alarm clock. I thank you for your years of faithful service to education. Thank you for the difference that you have made not only to your schools but to the wider Roe Valley area. I wish you both much happiness, good health and many wonderful years ahead.
Mr Robinson: May your retirement be as rewarding and fulfilling as the careers that you have left behind.
Mr Butler: Everyone will agree with me that there can be no compromise when it comes to protecting children and those who have suffered from sexual abuse. The law is absolutely clear: the anonymity afforded to complainants in sexual offence cases is not an optional courtesy but a legal protection that exists to safeguard victims from further trauma, encourage others to come forward and uphold confidence in our justice system.
We have heard many warnings from the Attorney General and the PSNI that anyone who seeks to identify or facilitate the identification of protected complainants may be committing a criminal offence. While those warnings are welcome, warnings are not enough. If there is credible evidence that individuals have deliberately breached those protections or have used social media or other platforms to encourage others to do so, the public are entitled to expect that those entrusted with enforcing the law will act. Justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. Law that is enacted but not enforced risks becoming law that will be ignored. This is not about any one individual, nor is it about politics. It is about public curiosity. It is about ensuring that victims of sexual offences can have confidence that the protections that the Assembly and Parliament have provided are real and meaningful.
My question to the Attorney General and the PSNI is this: having rightly warned of the consequences of unlawfully identifying protected complainants, will they now ensure that those warnings are backed up by robust investigation and, where the evidence meets the legal test, appropriate prosecution? If we stay silent and fail to ask that those protections be upheld, we risk sending a chilling message to future victims that speaking out may expose them to public identification and harassment. We owe them better than that. The law should be applied fairly and consistently without fear or favour.
Ms Brownlee: I want to recognise three outstanding East Antrim candidates for this year's BBC 'Make a Difference' awards. Their passion, dedication and commitment has made a lasting impact on East Antrim. First, I congratulate the Eco Rangers NI, who have inspired people of all ages to take pride in their environment through clean-ups, environmental education, conservation projects and activities that encourage people to engage with nature. Eco Rangers NI have helped to improve public spaces and promote environmental responsibility. Their efforts demonstrate how local action can make a meaningful difference, and I know that East Antrim would be lost without them.
Secondly, I acknowledge Iris Tweed from Islandmagee, whose commitment to helping others has earned her a well-deserved recognition for her fundraising. Individuals such as Iris often work quietly behind the scenes and give their time and energy without seeking any recognition. Iris has become the backbone of community life. Her nomination reflects the esteem in which she is held in Islandmagee, where everybody loves her.
Finally, I pay tribute to Carrickfergus Hub Improving Lives Locally (CHILL), which has become an important source of support and connection for many people in Carrickfergus. The organisation tackles loneliness and provides a welcoming space alongside counselling and support for so many individuals. The extent to which it has grown and thrived shows the power that a community organisation can have.
All three finalists represent the best of East Antrim. They continue to show us the importance of community and the invaluable work of the community sector and the impact that it has. I congratulate all three as they await the 'Make a Difference' final. I am incredibly proud of them, and I wish them all the best.
Mr Gaston: I have repeatedly raised in the Chamber and in the Executive Office (TEO) Committee the failure of the Irish Government to play their part in delivering justice for victims of terrorism. To date, Dublin has sought to portray itself as some form of neutral third party whose role is merely to equality-proof proposals that have been brought forward by the UK Government. That position bears no resemblance to the reality of the Troubles.
It ignores the fact that the Irish Republic provided a safe haven from which IRA terrorists were able to operate. It ignores the fact that murderers could escape across the border and evade justice. It ignores the fact that, for decades, terrorists sought to justify their campaign of murder and mayhem by claiming that the Irish constitution gave them a right to wage war in Northern Ireland. It also ignores the fact that, before the widespread importation of Semtex, much of the IRA's explosive material originated in the Irish Republic.
As a result of evidence given by the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery to the Executive Office Committee two weeks ago, we know that requests for assistance sent to an Garda Síochána on Troubles-related investigations are simply being ignored. For Peter Sheridan to reveal that correspondence relating to murders in Northern Ireland with a cross-border element are receiving no responses from the Southern authorities is an astonishing indictment of the Irish Government's attitude towards victims. Dublin cannot continue to demand a seat at the table when dealing with the legacy of the Troubles and simultaneously refuse to assist investigations of terrorist crimes. Such an approach demonstrates a lack of commitment to truth, justice and, indeed, accountability for thousands of innocent people whose lives were devastated by terrorism.
I also challenge the Executive Office. The Veterans Commissioner told us on the same day that correspondence about veterans' issues never receive a substantive reply from the First Minister and deputy First Minister other than an acknowledgement, in spite of TEO's being in charge of victims' issues. That situation does not exist when it comes to groups representing the interests of terrorists.
My challenge to the DUP is this: what is the deputy First Minister doing to change that scandalous situation to ensure that veterans' correspondence is being responded to, and being responded to in a timely manner?
Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will be aware that, over the past few days, revelations have been published by BBC's 'Spotlight' that touch on grave matters, including some that concern you. Standing Order —.
Mr Speaker: Please take your seat for a moment. I was about to announce that I intend to make a statement in about four minutes' time, after Mr Chambers has presented his public petition and the business motion has been moved. You will be able to raise your issue then.
Mr Speaker: Mr Chambers has sought leave to present a public petition in accordance with Standing Order 22. The Member has up to three minutes to speak.
Mr Chambers: It is my pleasure and privilege to present a petition signed by more than 1,500 people calling on the Department for Infrastructure to drop plans to chop down a number of mature street trees in Main Street, Groomsport.
Groomsport is a beautiful village with a strong community spirit. It is a perfect place to live, work or visit. It has two busy community groups that have volunteers out and about in the village, weekly, carrying out litter picks and tasks such as clearing weeds.
The original Irish name for Groomsport meant "the port of the gloomy servant". It is now anything but gloomy. It is a bright and welcoming seaside resort; a vibrant village that regularly comes out on top in best-kept village competitions and has had many successes in Ulster in Bloom inspections. Indeed, in the past week, it has been adjudged to be the best-kept town on the island of Ireland. It has many outstanding characteristics, including three lovely beaches with clean and pollution-free bathing water; a well-sheltered harbour that is reputed to have been first constructed by the Vikings; a modern children's playground; and tennis courts. Many years ago, the community ensured that two remaining fishermen's cottages with thatched roofs were spared the demolition ball. They are now a tourist attraction that has displays of old artefacts of the period and hosts community activities during the summer months. The village is a haven for water sports, birdwatching, recreational walks and as a place to simply relax.
A relatively recent piece of important character that was added to the village some years ago was the addition of a number of trees along Main Street. The variety of tree planted was chosen after great thought had gone into finding a member of the maple tree family that was considered to be best suited to withstand the storms and conditions that proximity to the sea can bring. They have matured into healthy trees that give the village a continental feel, especially when the sun shines.
In the past five years, the Department has received a few complaints about damage to footpaths that is allegedly caused by the trees' roots. One householder has raised concerns that the tree closest to their home is causing dampness to their property. That will have to be fully investigated. The Department's approach to the problem, however, has been to fire up the chainsaws. That is a shameful and unacceptably lazy plan. There are many engineering solutions that do not involve such crude environmental vandalism. Government policy, rather than to chop down healthy mature specimens, is to encourage more tree planting. The petition's message is clear:
"We the undersigned strongly object to the proposal from the Department for Infrastructure to fell the trees along the Main Street in Groomsport."
Mr Chambers moved forward and laid the petition on the Table.
Mr Speaker: I will forward the petition to the Minister for Infrastructure and send a copy to the Committee for Infrastructure.
That Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4) be suspended for 29 June 2026.
Mr Speaker: Before we proceed to the Question, I remind Members that cross-community support is required.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved (with cross-community support):
That Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4) be suspended for 29 June 2026.
Mr Speaker: Members, I indicated that I was going to make a statement to the House. Although I am not in the Chair in a party capacity, I have heard the comments from Members in the House, so I will make some brief remarks.
When Jeffrey Donaldson and I were campaigning to be elected leader of the DUP in 2021, a party colleague brought to my attention the fact that a young adult woman had told him that Mr Donaldson had shown her unwanted attention. Nothing of a criminal or safeguarding nature was raised. That colleague offered her support to take the matter forward as a complaint to several bodies, but she declined.
I have asked the Clerk to the Assembly/Chief Executive to conduct an investigation on behalf of the Assembly to ensure that any member of staff or any Member who has issues to raise will have the opportunity to do so. I also call on the head of the Civil Service, given that complaints about inappropriate behaviour were raised about Mr Donaldson during his time as a junior Minister, and the Speaker of the House of Commons, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, to do likewise.
Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. These are clearly matters of the gravest importance. I welcome the fact that you have given us some indication and clarification today. I need to ask you these questions, because, under Standing Orders, there is no formal accountability provision for your office: are you confident that no safeguarding procedure was engaged? Have you taken advice from any statutory agency or from the PSNI on that? Moreover, will you provide a detailed written response either to the Assembly Commission or in some other form, including making copies available via the Assembly Library? It would be helpful to have detailed clarity on those points.
Mr Speaker: I understand that the PSNI investigated the matter during its investigation of the issues that led to the conviction of Donaldson and that there was nothing to take forward. I am absolutely confident that there was not a safeguarding issue at any point, because the person was an adult. Donaldson behaved inappropriately to that person — I understand that that has happened to other people, given the 'Spotlight' interviews — so I want to open this up to ensure that people, should they have experienced inappropriate behaviour from that source as Members or as members of staff, have the opportunity to have it addressed. That is why I call on the head of the Civil Service to do the same, particularly given Donaldson's role as a junior Minister, and I encourage Sir Lindsay Hoyle to do the same at Westminster. We do not know the extent of his activity.
Ms Ennis: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given the severity and gravity of the situation and the accusations in hand, will you be recusing yourself from adjudication on any issues relating to the matter?
Mr Speaker: Yes, that would always be the case. When the question for urgent oral answer and Matters of the Day were tabled for today, Mr Blair dealt with them, because he does not have any skin in the game, as such. At all points, I will follow due process. I will ensure that I am not engaged in any decision-making or adjudicating on anything to do with Sir Jeffrey Donaldson's — or Jeffrey Donaldson's — misdemeanours.
Mr Tennyson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is an unconventional intervention, but we are in unprecedented times. I ask for your assurance that you will engage fully with any investigations or inquiries that come about as a result of matters that were raised over the weekend. Will you provide clarity on why, it appears, no internal party action was taken under your tenure? Although the matters were not criminal, it is clear from your remarks that they were deeply inappropriate.
Mr Speaker: Absolutely. That is why the colleague offered to do something on that front. The person declined to take that forward. We cannot force a person to do that, but she received the offer to take the matter to DUP party officers, with the support of the individual to whom she went in the first instance. All that and more was on the table, but the individual declined to take it forward. The individual merely wanted us to know how he had behaved, because she did not want him to be the leader of unionism. That is what she requested — nothing more, and nothing less.
Miss Hargey: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like clarity. You mentioned the Speaker's Office, as well as, potentially, the head of the Civil Service, doing a review. Will the terms of the Speaker's Office's review be made public?
Mr Speaker: It would certainly not be carried out by the Speaker's Office, because that would draw me into it. The Chief Executive's office will deal with the review, and it will be for the Chief Executive to set the terms of that review. I see no reason why, in the interests of probity and accountability, that would not be made public.
Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the Speaker's allowing these points of order to provide clarity. So that we can understand, I ask whether the Chief Executive's review will be of the circumstances of your involvement in the matter in 2021; broader issues surrounding Donaldson's time as an MLA and junior Minister; or both. I think that we now have clarity about the fact that both the terms of reference and the report will be published, but will you clarify precisely what the Chief Executive is being asked to review and publish on?
Mr Speaker: The Chief Executive will look at Donaldson's behaviour between 2003 and 2010, when he was a Member here. I do not have anything to answer for, because I did not engage in misbehaviour of any kind. It is an investigation that will allow people who were potentially victims of abuse by Jeffrey Donaldson — those in the House or among the staff of the House or anything else associated with the House — if there are any, to come forward. Let us be very clear that this is about the criminal — the paedophile — Jeffrey Donaldson and nothing else.
Ms Ennis: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Would it not be more appropriate for you to recuse yourself while your party does its internal investigation of whether there was any impropriety during your time as leader, as it indicated this morning it will do?
Mr Speaker: I have made absolutely clear that there are no safeguarding or criminal issues involved. Not one iota of evidence has been presented to me, or, indeed, to the public, of wrongdoing on my part. It is not necessary for me to recuse myself at this point, because there is nothing to answer for. As I said, there was nothing criminal or related to safeguarding. Support was offered to the woman involved, and the woman declined to take the matter further. If any Member has something to say about my having done anything wrong, I want to hear it.
Mr McGuigan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to my party colleague's point of order about the DUP's internal investigation, what is the point of doing an investigation if you are telling us that you have nothing to answer for? You were the leader of the DUP at a time when accusations were levelled against Jeffrey Donaldson. In the absence of that inquiry, I think that it would be appropriate for you to recuse yourself.
Mr Speaker: I am not here to speak on behalf of the DUP. The DUP's decision to carry out an investigation is a matter for that political party, as it would be for any other political party. Remember, Mr Donaldson was a member of the DUP from 2003, but he was a member of another political party before that. It a matter for the Democratic Unionist Party what it does.
I am laying it clear to the House this afternoon that at no time did I not act on a safeguarding issue or a criminal issue. That is something that I would have had to do, irrespective of the consequences. A safeguarding issue was never brought to me, and a criminal issue was never brought to me. That is very clear. I will be able to deal with that at any point, and, if someone wants to bring evidence of me not doing that, I will be happy to hear from them.
Ms Bradshaw: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Six months ago, my party colleague Sian Mulholland approached Clerking and Member Support (CAMS) in this Building and asked that safeguarding training be provided to MLAs so that they know exactly what to do when they are presented with information. Can the Speaker's Office please chase that up? Given the circumstances, we all need either training or refresher training on what we should do in those circumstances.
Mr Speaker: Thank you for that, Ms Bradshaw. I will certainly ask the Chief Executive to follow that issue up.
Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not think that anybody is conflating the actions of Jeffrey Donaldson with your response, and I do not think that that is what is at issue here. The question is of providing confidence because, under Standing Orders, we have no other means of holding the Speaker's Office to account. The Speaker's Office is the symbolic head of this institution. We all elect the Speaker, so we need to understand and we all need to have confidence.
If you are saying that the review by the Clerk pertains only to the time when Mr Donaldson was a Member of this Chamber, are there any other means of clarifying the processes that were followed in 2021 in that brief period when you were leader? We understand that certain processes were followed. People will question whether it is, as it were, good enough simply to have your assurance. That is not to impugn you; it is simply to say that we will want more clarity. Will there be any other process, whether it is a written statement provided to the Assembly Library for Members to study or any other formal process via an Assembly Committee or the Assembly Commission? Can you offer us the opportunity to satisfy ourselves around your actions in 2021, not to impugn you but merely so that we can all have confidence and, much more important, that the public of Northern Ireland can have confidence?
Mr Speaker: There is nothing new coming forward there. A jury of 12 people found Mr Donaldson guilty last week of paedophile behaviour and sexual behaviour against children, something that is utterly repugnant to me. I have spoken out on those issues, whether that has been about Liam Adams or about William Walker, who was a member of the DUP. I have consistently spoken out on those issues over the years and defended victims. If I had any authority from someone to act on their behalf, I would do it immediately, irrespective of the consequences. I had no authority to act on behalf of an adult to take the matter further. The matter was not a safeguarding matter. The matter was not a criminal matter. The police have investigated it as part of the Donaldson inquiry, and therefore I have nothing to answer for.
My integrity has been impugned by someone who leaked to the 'Belfast Telegraph'. I believe that that was Baroness Kate Hoey, who gave part of a picture. I believe that she knew at the time. What did she do about it? The 'Belfast Telegraph' sought to impugn my integrity on this issue. I have nothing to answer for, because I did not engage in any activity to cover up anything or to do anything that was untoward. I did not have a safeguarding issue to deal with, and I did not have a criminal issue to deal with. It was an adult lady who indicated the nature of Jeffrey Donaldson, but she only wanted us to know about his nature, given that he was standing for the leadership of the Democratic Unionist Party. It was not my role to do something that, she clearly and specifically said, she did not want taken further.
Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): I wish to make a statement to the Assembly setting out the next steps in my ambition to reform rating policy and bring about a more progressive, transparent and fair taxation system. I have been consistent in my support for local businesses and have publicly recognised their contribution to the local economy. Equally, I have listened to the concerns raised around sustainability, growth and how challenging the operating environment has become. That is why I am announcing a public consultation on two significant proposals designed to support business growth while addressing longer-term issues in the rating system: first, the introduction of a business growth accelerator and, secondly, changes to non-domestic vacant rating.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Blair] in the Chair)
I want the rating system to support rather than constrain development, improvement and investment. The proposal to introduce a business growth accelerator would see temporary targeted relief offered to businesses that are taking tangible steps to expand their operations. That support is designed to reduce the upfront financial pressure on businesses investing in their property; allow businesses to recoup investment costs; and encourage development that might otherwise not proceed. The business growth accelerator would give businesses a specified grace period after making improvements. During that time, they would continue to pay rates based on the property's value before the improvements, delaying an immediate increase. That will help to create better conditions for construction activity, business expansion and wider economic regeneration.
Alongside the business growth accelerator, I want to examine how non-domestic vacant rating operates and how increases in liability levels can be best implemented. At present, vacant properties are liable for up to 50% of occupied rates. The consultation proposes increasing that liability on a staged basis to 75% and then 100% to encourage the use of vacant space. We will seek views on introducing a phased approach to increases in vacant rating liability rather than a single-step change. I outlined my intent to take that approach in my statement on 18 November, alongside the fact that reform of rating policy should support growth, make better use of property and ensure that the system is fair, proportionate and aligned with wider economic objectives. The current 50% rate, which is lower than that which applies in other jurisdictions, is perceived as reducing incentives to bring properties back into use.
The proposed change aims to encourage occupation; reduce long-term vacancy; align more closely with other jurisdictions; and increase revenue up to an estimated £20 million annually. The case for change is grounded in the need to strike the right balance between encouraging productive occupation, tackling long-term vacancy and avoiding unintended consequences for businesses and property owners. I am particularly keen to hear from those impacted by vacant commercial units and especially about how any phased increase can be implemented in a sustainable way that is fair, proportionate and sustainable within the tax system.
The proposals on the business growth accelerator and changes to non-domestic vacant rating are, in my view, an important step forward, especially as they underpin my previously stated commitments, removing disincentives to expansion by ensuring that businesses that invest in their physical footprint are not unfairly penalised by immediate increases in rates and unlocking future tax-base growth. By supporting businesses to grow today, we are expanding the economy, which, in turn, will secure long-term, sustainable revenue for our public services. They will also complement existing support. The accelerator will operate alongside our highly successful Back in Business scheme, which has helped to bring over 100 vacant high street properties back into use since May 2024. Those issues have been the subject of considerable interest and comment in the Assembly, and it is right that we grasp the nettle now. Consideration of those matters sits alongside other important strands of rating reform on which I will continue to update the Assembly.
I turn now to the strategic review of rates supports. It might be helpful to remind Members of the progress to date. As set out in my statement to the Assembly in November, I intend to look across the existing support landscape and consider how it can better reflect and positively respond to present-day economic conditions and policy priorities. This announcement represents the next step in that. That said, I also put on record my intention to strengthen support for small businesses. In that vein, £10 million has been set aside in the draft Budget to broaden the impact of the small business rate relief scheme in order to increase the number of businesses that can benefit from it. I also remind Members that the review process has assessed four measures: the early payment discount; the maximum cap; small business rate relief; and the non-domestic vacant rating policy. Recommendations for Executive consideration, following full public consultation, have already been made in relation to the maximum cap, the early payment discount and small business rate relief, with the latter included as a costed intervention in my Budget proposals. As I said, non-domestic vacant rating is due to be consulted on in the coming weeks alongside the business growth accelerator proposals.
I indicated to the Assembly in November that the review process would be expedited, with the target for completion the end of the 2027-28 rating year. Looking ahead, there is a clear case for examining the rating of empty homes, and that will be my next priority. Considering the rating of empty homes provides an opportunity to understand and assess two related issues that are often raised in the same context, namely, second homes and holiday homes. Importantly, given the link to the Executive's housing strategy, taking forward our own review during this financial year will permit better alignment with that important programme of work.
Alongside those significant policy reviews, in line with my commitment to expedite the process, I have asked my officials to continue to work at pace to scope the remaining rate reliefs. That would allow for the implications, sequencing and resource requirements of any further review work to be assessed, including an assessment of the willingness of others to make decisions about reform and an equitable rating system before decisions are taken on how best to proceed.
In closing, I reiterate how important it is to me, as Minister of Finance, that our businesses are supported to thrive. I want to see additional support directed at those businesses, which provide vital employment, supporting workers, families and communities. The measures that I have set out reflect my ambition to enable business expansion, tackle vacant properties and help to revitalise towns and high streets while unlocking future growth in rates revenue for local and central government. My focus is clear: to support our public services, strengthen our local businesses, back workers and families and grow our economy for the benefit of everyone.
Mr O'Toole: Minister, I welcome the business growth accelerator proposal, but it is a proposal that will be consulted on, and I have genuinely lost count of the number of proposals and consultations we have had on ratings policy. We have had countless consultations on changes to rating — you mentioned vacant properties, and we have had them on non-domestic vacant relief and the maximum cap for domestic properties — but have had no policy change, so "accelerator" is a bit of a misnomer because nothing has moved more slowly than change on rates. Will there be a single change to the rates system before the end of the mandate?
Mr O'Dowd: On that point, Mr O'Toole, I share your frustration. There is an obligation on all parties in the Executive to be minded to enhance support for businesses, to look at how we can have a modern, fair and equitable rating system and to move beyond responding to or being behind the last lobby to walk through your office door. We need a better way of doing things.
I have set out in the statement measures that, I believe, will support small businesses, enhance business activity, sustain and grow employment and grow our economy. It is up to others whether they are prepared to back that. If there is no further movement at the conclusion of this consultation process, I will take a decision on whether it is worth our time to move ahead with any of the rates reforms if there are those at the Executive table who are not prepared to take the necessary decisions.
Miss Dolan: Minister, what support is the rating system providing for small businesses?
Mr O'Dowd: As I mentioned, we have a successful Back in Business scheme supporting businesses that are moving into properties that have been vacant for over 12 months. I visited a number of those, and the ingenuity of people in bringing businesses and life back into vacant properties is remarkable. We have a small business rate relief scheme, which provides a huge boost to businesses, giving them up to 50% rates relief. Therefore, a number of successful measures are in place, and I want to see them increasing. In recognition of the pressures, challenges and opportunities that exist for our businesses, there is a duty on us in this place to offer what support we can in a fair and equitable way.
Ms Forsythe: Minister, you say that you want to avoid unintended consequences for businesses and property owners, but those measures do nothing for existing long-term businesses that are struggling on, already occupy premises and cannot afford to invest in their properties, and there will be consequences for them.
Minister, what are you doing for the businesses that have been in our communities and on our high streets in the long term that are also struggling?
Mr O'Dowd: As I set out in response to the previous question, we have in place the vacant property rate relief scheme and the small business rate relief scheme, which are very successful. I set aside £10 million in the draft Budget for small business rate relief to be invested. Today's proposals could raise up to £20 million for councils and the Executive. We will see what happens as the consultation on increasing the tax liability for vacant properties goes on. Some in the sector argue that they cannot afford to bring such properties back into use. Could we use the money raised as a grant to those businesses to facilitate their bringing properties back into use through physical improvements etc? That is a worthy debate to have. However, to do any of those things, you have to make decisions. That is what politics is about: making decisions.
Mr Tennyson: Minister, rating relief is, of course, related to revaluation. I ask for an update on that process.
Mr O'Dowd: I have to be mindful of and await the outcome of an ongoing court case. There is engagement with the sector at official level, and I await a report from the sector on how it believes that rate reviews should proceed and what that would look like, which I look forward to seeing.
Dr Aiken: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, as well as the move to reduce the cost to the Assembly of vacant non-domestic properties and to increase liability so that we will not have so many vacant properties, you will be aware of the Dilapidation Bill and of the conversations that have been taking place in Wales and Scotland about bringing together the issues of dilapidation and vacant property rate relief. Have you had any discussions with the Agriculture Minister about how those matters can be more joined up?
Mr O'Dowd: My officials have been engaging on how the Agriculture Minister's Bill impacts on the work that we are trying to do: there is common cause in that. We need legislative and fiscal intervention to bring, in many instances, our town centres and villages back to life. The proposals that I have put forward today complement what the Agriculture Minister is trying to do.
Mr Gildernew: I thank the Minister for his statement. I have been working with Dungannon Chamber of Commerce and Industry. It will welcome this work, particularly in light of its concerns about vacancy and protecting the retail heart of towns such as Dungannon. How impactful is the Back in Business scheme in supporting start-ups and encouraging expansion?
Mr O'Dowd: It has been very useful in encouraging new businesses in particular. Giving them that rate relief allows them to invest the moneys saved in their property and business. It does not help only those businesses, however. Reopening a vacant property brings footfall to that part of the street. Businesses either side of such properties have commented to me on my visits that they welcome businesses opening in those properties, because that means more people coming into the town or village. If they drop into such a business, they might drop into the business next door. It is all about increasing footfall on the high street and in our villages.
Mr Kingston: Although the Minister notified us a week ago that he would make his statement, it was disappointing that we received the text of it less than an hour before he was scheduled to give it in the Chamber, which did not help us with scrutiny.
I welcome all initiatives to reduce the blight and waste represented by domestic and business premises that are not in use. Will the Minister clarify the terms of the Back in Business scheme? Will the discount still be 50% for 24 months? How will he cooperate with other initiatives such as the Vacant to Vibrant scheme in Belfast, which provides grants with support from the Department for Communities and what was the UK Shared Prosperity Fund?
Mr O'Dowd: Your party colleagues on the Executive have had proposals before them for over a year without being able to substantively respond to them, so I am not sure whether, had I given you this statement a year ago, you would have been in a position to respond.
As for how the system will work, I look forward to seeing the consultation responses. We will listen carefully to those responses and learn from them in order to shape how the final proposals will look.
Mr McGrath: Minister, climate change is happening, and extreme weather events are taking place. We saw that in Downpatrick a number of years ago when the town centre was ravaged by flooding, and it has taken the businesses affected many years to try to get over that flooding. Has any consideration been given to looking at what can be done through the rating system to try to help businesses that struggle to get back on their feet after such extreme weather events?
Mr O'Dowd: Where businesses feel that their circumstances have changed to such a degree that their rates cannot be met, there are opportunities. For example, they can engage directly with their local evaluator. There is a process in place for doing that.
I have announced today a number of programmes to continue the small business rate relief scheme. It is about raising revenue for reinvestment in a fair and equitable way. We can therefore look at imaginative schemes. One of the barriers for the entire Executive at the moment is the lack of resources to be able to invest. First, we need a proper and fair funding settlement from the Government, and, secondly, we need to look at the measures that we have at hand, one of which is the rating system. If we use it in a fair and equitable way to raise revenue, we can develop schemes beyond what is currently available to businesses that are affected by extreme weather conditions, or whatever it may be, but we need the funds in order to do that.
Mr Harvey: Thank you for your statement, Minister. I am pleased to see the non-domestic rates element of the review, which we have called for as a party, progressing.
On the sustainable implementation of any changes, as noted in your statement, will the consultation consider views on the need for there to be targeted support and regeneration measures alongside any rates increase?
Mr O'Dowd: Of course we will give due regard to the consultation responses, regardless of the sector or individual from which they come. We are open to ideas on how to improve our rating system and how we use it to raise revenue and increase our economic activity and business support. The two things go hand in hand.
Ms Sugden: Minister, non-domestic vacant rates are a significant burden on many businesses across the board. What you have announced today will not support all those businesses. I appreciate that your proposals will raise revenue that, as you say, can be used by councils, but they are not getting that support, nor are they getting support from your colleague in the Department for the Economy. Will you therefore outline how we can better support businesses on the high street, using the opportunity available through the rating system, so that our town centres stop becoming ghost towns?
Mr O'Dowd: Rates are a tax. I understand that nobody likes paying tax. Perhaps a better way of putting it is that they certainly do not like paying unfair tax. What I am trying to do is to ensure that our rating system is fair and equitable. Around 30,000 businesses receive support from the small business rate relief scheme. That is a huge number. Under my proposals, and through the utilisation of the £10 million that has been set aside in the draft Budget, we could probably increase that number to 33,000. We provide around a quarter of a billion pounds in rate relief to small to medium-sized enterprises in particular and to other businesses.
There are measures afoot. I want to use the proposals that I have set out today to allow businesses to think about physical expansion. Through the accelerator scheme, a business can expand and not have a rates liability for x amount of time. A year has been suggested, but it may be longer than that. Doing that will allow a business to stabilise after its initial investment in construction works etc. Yes, we have supports in place. Can we do more? Let us look and see. I am open to proposals on all those matters, but they have to be fair and equitable, and we have to make decisions.
Miss Hargey: Thank you for your statement, Minister. Anything that encourages local businesses to grow is important. Will you outline when the changes to non-domestic vacant rating will be introduced?
Mr O'Dowd: As I announced today, there is a requirement for us to go through a consultation process, engage on the responses to it and prepare a report, which then has to go to the Executive. The accelerator scheme will, I believe, require primary legislation. The vacant property measure will probably require regulations. All that would have to be followed through. With goodwill, we could have the vacant property measure pushed through before the end of the mandate. The other measure may require primary legislative change.
Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister for his statement. We have all seen the deterioration of our high streets and streets in our towns and villages with the shift to online shopping. Vacancy and dilapidation are now sadly the norm. Will the review act as a stimulus for businesses on those streets in our towns and villages?
Mr O'Dowd: It will play an important role in that. One of the reasons why I am looking to move the non-domestic vacant rating policy from 50% to 75% to 100% is to encourage businesses that are not generating any income at the moment to be brought back into viability. Now, that will present challenges. It will depend on how the market is at the time. There is an argument to be made that, where we raise revenue through that measure, we should look at a grant scheme or support scheme for businesses — particularly those that require physical investment in their structure — to bring them back into usable shape, whether that be for business purposes or non-business purposes.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that questions should be concise and that long introductions will not be allowed.
Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): In compliance with section 52 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I wish to make the following statement on the twenty-fifth meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) in special EU programmes sectoral format, which was held at Black Mountain Shared Space on 10 June 2026. As Finance Minister, I represented the Executive and was accompanied by junior Minister Bunting. The Irish Government were represented by Minister Jack Chambers TD, who is responsible for the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation. The statement has been agreed with junior Minister Bunting, and I am making the statement on behalf of us both.
Before the meeting started, the Council received an informative tour of Black Mountain Shared Space and saw first-hand the positive impact that £7 million of Peace IV funding has had on bringing communities together. The meeting commenced with an update from the Special EU Programmes Body (SEUPB) chief executive. Ministers noted the successful closure of the Peace IV and INTERREG Va programmes, with reports submitted to the European Commission in February 2026. The Council was encouraged to hear that the delivery of PEACE PLUS is progressing well, with all investment areas having opened for calls. However, the Council noted the challenging financial target to be met in 2026. To date, 121 projects have been approved under the main programme and 65 projects have been approved under the Change Maker funding programme, which is the small grants initiative for investment in grassroots organisations. In total, approximately €1 billion has been committed across the PEACE PLUS programme, representing 94% of the commitment. Calls for funding are currently open under investment area 6.1, strategic planning and engagement, and investment area 2.3, programme area skills development, of the Change Maker funding programme. I encourage any eligible organisations to apply.
On matters of corporate governance, Ministers noted that the Special EU Programmes Body is nearing completion of its recruitment of a full complement of staff, as approved by NSMC in May 2024. The Council noted that the 2024 annual accounts are being reviewed by the Comptroller and Auditor General in both jurisdictions, and will be laid before the Assembly and Oireachtas as soon as possible following certification. The draft 2025 accounts will undergo the same process this year.
Looking ahead, Ministers received an update on the development of a future PEACE PLUS programme and welcomed the fact that engagement between stakeholders is under way. That ongoing collaboration is important in shaping a successful programme.
To conclude the meeting, the Council received an engaging presentation on the PEAT+ project, which is focused on restoring more than 12,000 hectares of peatlands across the programme area, with funding of approximately €19·2 million committed. The project will deliver environmental benefits and support rural jobs and skills. The Council agreed to hold its next special EU programmes meeting in late 2026.
[Translation: I thank the Minister.]
Minister, do you have any idea when we will get clarification on the next programme?
Mr O'Dowd: I understand that there have been positive engagements between the British and Irish Governments, who are also working with the EU Commission on, hopefully, agreeing a future funding programme under Peace. At this stage, it is fair to say that all indications are positive, but nothing will be guaranteed until it is signed off. Obviously, the Executive will have to contribute to any future programme as well.
Miss Dolan: Thank you, Minister, for your statement. You have outlined the current position with the PEACE PLUS programme. How does that link in with rural communities and deprived communities?
Mr O'Dowd: The huge benefits that the PEACE PLUS programme has had over the past number of years has been identified across a wide range of rural communities. Again, it is also targeted at tackling social deprivation and making change across communities through a wide range of projects and meeting the demands and needs of local communities and wider society. Thus far, the programme has been positive. I look forward to continuing to work with the stakeholders in it and continuing to see positive change as a result.
Ms Forsythe: The Minister will not be surprised by my question on the delay of the accounts certification on SEUPB, as we are in June 2026, 18 months after the end of financial year 2024. Those accounts have still not been certified in both jurisdictions, and a full further financial year has since passed.
Minister, are there any plans to move forward and speed up the process in the interest of financial accountability, noting that, for the financial year ending in March this year, the accounts mainly will be laid before summer recess here for the Departments in that size?
Mr O'Dowd: I raised that matter at the meeting, and I proposed that we write to the Audit Office about those matters to see whether there is a way that we can ensure that accounts are laid in a timely fashion, as they should be, in the time frames that we all expect. Minister Chambers and I will hopefully agree a letter in the near future to forward to the Audit Office about that matter.
Miss Hargey: Minister, you outlined some of the benefits of the Peace and INTERREG programmes. How can those be improved, particularly in terms of economic development outputs for socially deprived communities as well?
Mr O'Dowd: We want to ensure that we see programmes that deliver sustainable change across communities and are not one-off events funded for the time frame of the programme, where communities see long-lasting, real change to the outcomes of this generation and future generations in those communities. The Peace programme has been largely successful. It has not only brought huge amounts of money into communities but delivered significant change. However, we want to ensure that that change is sustainable, meets the needs of those communities and creates lasting change for future generations.
Mr Harvey: Thank you, Minister, for your statement. You highlighted the Change Maker funding programme and support for 65 grassroots organisations. I am sure that you will agree that it is vital that the benefit of schemes is seen at a grassroots community level. In light of that, is it your view that similar small grants mechanisms should be prioritised in any future Peace programmes?
Mr O'Dowd: It should certainly be part of any future Peace programme. While there are places and, indeed, a need for, perhaps, multimillion-pound projects, there are also needs in communities for smaller amounts of funding that make real and deliverable change within a time frame that many community groups can work to. Therefore, I would like to see a similar Change Maker programme in the next round of funding.
Mr Kingston: Certainly, the Peace funding has been a substantial extra financial boost for Northern Ireland, particularly when it comes to capital projects. How do Ministers ensure that funding decisions by the SEUPB align as much as possible with the Northern Ireland Executive's Programme for Government?
Mr O'Dowd: The funding programme and the decisions made by the board have to meet the criteria set out by the Commission, agreed between the Irish and British Governments and, indeed, supported by the Executive. In some sense, decisions might have been out of kilter with the previous Programme for Government. We have to ensure that, in our engagements with the two Governments and the European Commission on any future programme, the decisions meet our priorities as much as possible and are tied in with them. That is part of an ongoing engagement and will have to take place over the time ahead.
Ms D Armstrong: Much is said about working towards regional balance in our economy. What assessment has been made of the geographical spread of PEACE PLUS funding? Can you provide assurances that rural communities are not being left behind in favour of urban centres, which have much more capacity to apply for that funding?
Mr O'Dowd: I do not have a full assessment in front of me. I am happy for officials to share with you any assessments that are available, but there has been a particular emphasis on the border corridors, which have large rural communities, as you will be aware. The investment along those corridors has been significant and has made tangible changes in those communities. In tackling poverty and inequality, urban and rural settings have both different and common challenges. Thus far, the Peace programme has been flexible enough to identify those and ensure that it works in tandem with the needs of local communities. I will share whatever information we have with the Member.
Mr O'Toole: Minister, I welcome the statement. I hope that you can take advantage of the Irish presidency and use your influence to push the need for a successor programme. My question is specifically about an issue that affects the border, which was asked about before. Clearly, the programme aims, in particular, to help border regions on both sides of the border that have dealt with the legacy of partition, division and all those things. A concerning poll came out this weekend, and there has been lots of concerning chatter about people reimposing a hard border on people, as it were, on the island of Ireland. I assume that you will want to join me in saying clearly that the worst possible thing for the communities that benefit from PEACE PLUS funding is any suggestion of hardening that border; it needs to be kept open, free and smooth. You and I do not want it to be there in the first place, but do you agree that, while it is, it needs to be as open and smooth as possible?
Mr O'Dowd: There are no circumstances in which a hard border would be good for the people of Ireland; it would not be good for anyone. Those who suggest that are being naive at best and dangerous at worst, in the sense of not understanding this society.
Rural communities along the border are one and the same. The people in them live a singular life, and that is the same in business, farming or any aspect of their lives. It is the same existence. PEACE PLUS has ensured that communities along the border that were left behind for many years have begun to see the investment that they deserve.
The misunderstanding or the use of mistruths around borders on this island needs to be challenged on every occasion. We also need to challenge racism where it exists and the myths about migrants. They deliver public services, work in local businesses and deliver change in this society, which is good for the economy across the island of Ireland.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): That concludes questions on the statement.
Members, the next item of business in the Order Paper is Question Time. I therefore propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm.
The sitting was suspended at 1.55 pm and resumed at 2.00 pm.
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)
Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Significant action is being taken to increase capacity across diagnostic imaging and endoscopy services, which are central to many cancer pathways. Recent management information shows encouraging progress. Between 31 March and 11 June this year, the number of patients waiting more than 28 days for a suspected cancer diagnostic test reduced by 41%, falling from 1,452 to 852. Variation between trusts has also been reduced. That has been supported by regional approaches to service delivery. Regional endoscopy centres in the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust and the Western Health and Social Care Trust are treating suspected cancer patients from across Northern Ireland, while rapid diagnosis centres in the Northern Health and Social Care Trust and the Southern Health and Social Care Trust are providing regional cancer imaging services and helping to reduce variation across a number of cancer pathways.
Mr Gildernew: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, you said that there has been an improvement. However, recently, there were reports of over 1,400 patients waiting more than 28 days. How will you ensure that trusts consistently meet the targets for suspected cancer appointments in particular?
Mr Nesbitt: Part of the answer is funding and resource. The elective care framework implementation and funding plan includes £13 million for endoscopy services and £12 million for diagnostic imaging. When the plan is fully implemented, the investment will deliver approximately 16,500 additional endoscopy procedures and 7,800 imaging sessions each year.
It is about having a regional service that is consistent across the five geographic trusts. To encourage that, we have introduced a committee in common, bringing the five trusts together and saying to them, "In many ways, as a Department, we should look on you as one trust. Let us deal with the variation, where it is not appropriate, and make sure that we have consistent regional services".
Mrs Dodds: Minister, that is a brilliant segue into the question that I will ask. Just over 5% of women who are now seen within the 14-day target for a suspected breast cancer in Northern Ireland. That has happened since the list was regionalised. I get the fact that cancer cases are rising, but —
Mrs Dodds: — that is the same across the UK and across the world. What can be done to make sure that women are seen in a timely manner and that that wait of seven, eight or nine weeks is done away with?
Mr Nesbitt: The current waiting time is, I believe, just over five weeks, which is down from 12. That is cold comfort, given that the target is 14 days, but I will point out two issues to the Member. The first was the unacceptable variation between trusts. The Western Trust and the Southern Trust were the best and the worst. If you were living in the Southern Trust area, you might have had a wait that was three months longer than that of your best friend who was living in the Western Trust area, despite only living half a mile from them. In getting rid of the variation and having a consistent service with a single booking system, progress has been achieved. The second objective, which is to drive down the waiting time, is being achieved but is not complete yet. As I said, we started at 12 weeks. We are now at just over five weeks, and pressure continues to be applied to get down to the target time.
Mr McNulty: Minister, given that thousands of patients have died while on waiting lists in recent years, why should people have any confidence that delays in cancer diagnoses are not simply creating tomorrow's cancer treatment crisis?
Mr Nesbitt: The statistics that I have quoted suggest that we are moving in the right direction. It is cold comfort for anybody who is waiting beyond the stipulated waiting time to know that other people may have benefited from the work that has gone into that, but I do not buy into the idea that there is total despair in the system. The system is working very hard. The pathways need to be improved, but, by and large, if Members speak to anybody who has had healthcare recently, they will tell them that, once they get through the pathway, they get first-class care.
Ms Sugden: Minister, what impact do you anticipate the industrial strike having on waiting times? I am aware of a patient who was sent home today after urgent testing because there would not be a doctor to interpret their results.
Mr Nesbitt: It is a little early to be definitive about the statistical analysis of the disruption from the strikes, but some elective procedures will undoubtedly be postponed, which is a matter of deep regret for me. The doctors know that all that I am empowered to do is implement the 3·5% pay rise that the independent body recommended. I cannot do that until I have an agreed budget, but I hope that that will happen sooner rather than later. Going beyond that percentage would require the Executive to fall in behind me, because it would have repercussions for public-sector pay right across the board.
Mr Nesbitt: I spoke during Members' statements earlier about the untimely passing of the Western Trust's chair, Dr Tom Frawley CBE. I repeat my condolences to his family, his friends and his many admirers.
The Western Trust's vision for Fermanagh and west Tyrone is intended to provide a long-term framework for the delivery of health and social care services right across the area, including at the South West Acute Hospital (SWAH), at the Omagh Hospital and Primary Care Complex, in community services and in primary care. Members will recall that that work is happening after an intervention that I made last summer. The vision has now moved from its early engagement phase to the important formal public engagement phase, which commenced earlier this month. As Minister, I have had the pleasure of visiting the SWAH on multiple occasions. It is a superb facility.
The vision is wider than a single-service issue. It is an essential step in setting out how services can be configured in a way that is future-proofed, clinically safe and responsive to local need.
Mrs Erskine: I thank the Minister for his comments about the Western Trust's chair. I, too, pass on my sympathies to his family.
Minister, we had the pause to the emergency general surgery consultation process last July. You asked the trust to provide a vision plan. I am quite surprised by your answer, because I, as an elected representative, have not heard exactly what the result of that vision plan will be. Your Department has not even produced its own hospital reconfiguration plan, so how do the two match up? We have had the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA) report, which worryingly stated that we have no extra ambulance cover.
Mrs Erskine: It also stated that staff say that no significant changes have been made to improve the system. How can the public have confidence on this? We are another year down the line. What is the vision?
Mrs Erskine: Will you step in stop the limbo? Ultimately, this is about patients' lives —.
Mr Nesbitt: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Western Trust has assured me that it has undertaken a comprehensive early engagement exercise with stakeholders, involving all political parties, local businesses, service users, community groups, the Patient and Client Council (PCC), local media, community planning partners and Departments, including mine and DAERA. The vision process has a clearly defined programme of work and a timetable, with formal engagement now under way. Its purpose is to inform future planning and decision-making. I expect the final report to be published by March 2027.
The Member seems to be very cynical about the entire process, but the only viable alternative would have been for me to sit back and allow a badly flawed consultation process to proceed, rather than to intervene, which is what I did. When I say that it was a flawed process, I refer to the fact that only one consultation event was planned for Enniskillen, which is the main town, and that that event was on 13 July, the day after a public holiday. No public engagement was planned for Omagh. I think, therefore, that I was right to intervene. I share the Member's frustration that such a process takes longer in the public sector than it would in the private sector, but, in my opinion, we are following the right path.
Miss Dolan: Minister, I am really shocked at that response, because I am not aware of any Western Trust engagement on the vision plan. My question was going to be, "Will you outline how you will ensure that the public are aware of this planning, so that they can engage with it?". I do not know whether you can intervene with the Western Trust and ask it to provide proof of the so-called engagement that it has stated that it is having with political parties, businesses and local people. It appears, to me and my constituency colleague, that that has not happened.
Mr Nesbitt: I am struck by the Member's remarks and give her my assurance that, when I leave the Chamber, I will instruct officials to ask the Western Health and Social Care Trust for a written report detailing — in detail — the pre-engagement, including who they have spoken to and which organisations those people represent. If what the two Members say is correct, it is shocking and I have not been given accurate information, and that would not be acceptable.
Ms D Armstrong: Minister, thank you for your comments on the passing of Tom Frawley, which were befitting of a man of his stature. I, too, send my sympathy to his family.
Minister, I welcome the progress that is being made on the business plan, albeit the pace is frustrating, and share with fellow elected reps for Fermanagh and South Tyrone a sense of there being a need for further clarity and straighter answers on what is really happening. Any engagement that is taking place on the ground has certainly not come to me.
Minister, we are almost 12 months on from your intervention in July of last year. I am pleased that the SWAH is becoming a major centre of elective care, despite —
Ms D Armstrong: — progress on the vision plan being slow. Minister, will you provide an update on the expansion of gynae services at the hospital?
Mr Nesbitt: Recent investment has been made via the elective care framework, with seven additional sessions having been funded over a 42-week year as part of the first phase of endoscopy expansion. The bulk of that capacity is being delivered on the SWAH site and includes the provision of an additional consultant post based at the hospital alongside additional nurse endoscopist capacity. Further investment will be made to expand the service in the trust to deliver 50-week working across all endoscopy sessions with appropriate expansion of medical and nursing roles to support that. A funding allocation was recently released to the Western Trust to recurrently fund 10 sessions of CT in the SWAH on the previously uncommissioned backup CT scanner. Two additional MRI sessions have also been recurrently funded in the SWAH, which will ensure that there is full evening and seven-day working for MRI on that acute site.
Mr Donnelly: Will the Minister give an update on the hospital reconfiguration plan, to which the Member who asked the substantive question referred? When will that plan be produced?
Mr Nesbitt: The hospital reconfiguration consultation produced a significant number of responses, some of which were basically from a cut-and-paste template. That led me to have a discussion with the permanent secretary about what would be a novel way forward in Northern Ireland. That plan is being progressed. Unfortunately, it is not being progressed quickly enough for me to announce it on this side of recess, but I hope to announce it in the autumn.
Ms Hunter: Speaking of the future and a vision for the Western Trust, I sat, over the weekend, with a loved one who was severely suicidal. Once they reached triage, they were informed that, because they do not currently live in the Western Trust area, they would not be able to access support or be admitted. Upon that happening, I realised that, sadly, that is a much bigger issue and that many people have faced the same challenges due to the trust area in which they live and the A&E at which they present. Will you, please, take that lived experience back to your Department so that there is an understanding of the fact that people who experience acute suicidality need help exactly where they are and at that exact moment?
Mr Nesbitt: I am unaware of the individual case, and I am unaware that that is something that occurs in Health and Social Care (HSC) delivery, so I will take it away.
Mr Nesbitt: I fully recognise the impact of the current delays on individuals and families. The situation has arisen due to a combination of factors, including funding that falls short of objectively assessed need and previously missed opportunities to reform health and social care delivery. I am committed to addressing this, and that is, of course, subject to available funding. Through the strategic planning and performance group, my Department has identified the level of funding required to address the existing demand capacity gap and reduce the waiting list backlog across children's and adult services. It is currently being considered in the context of the current funding constraints.
Notwithstanding all of that, work is ongoing to improve assessment pathways and optimise existing delivery. That includes the public consultation on the children and young people's emotional health and well-being framework and the development of neurodevelopmental pathways aimed at enabling earlier intervention and better aligning services with population need.
Ms Brownlee: I thank the Minister for his response. We have over 17,000 children and over 4,000 adults on the waiting list. They are waiting for up to six years for an assessment.
Minister, in the delivery plan, there are no measurable targets to reduce those waiting times. Can you look at that to commit to recognising the challenges here, provide some targets and measure and report against those to make sure that we actually reduce the waiting times and that we have an evidential base to do so?
Mr Nesbitt: I very much understand the Member's desire to see hard targets set, both on numbers and on timelines. I get it and am not against it, but, in the past number of days, two public inquiries have reported, and my conclusion from that is that there is something that has to go above timelines, targets, savings and transformation: patient safety. Patient safety must be number one. When we have the health summit tomorrow, where, I hope, all the leaders across all the Health and Social Care bodies will come together, I will make the point forcefully to them that patient safety is now our number-one concern, explicitly. It should always have been, but the history of public inquiries in recent years suggests that, far too often, it has not been and avoidable harm has occurred.
Yes, targets, and yes, timelines, but above all is patient safety.
Mr McGuigan: I concur with the Minister that patient safety is ultimately the top priority, but patient safety is also important, as the Member said, in terms of assessments. If you cannot get assessments, your safety is compromised.
Following on from the issue of assessment, Minister, what progress has been made in improving autism services for adults once assessed, particularly in relation to accessing mental health support and supported living to enable autistic adults to live as independently as possible?
Mr Nesbitt: I absolutely share the Member's ambition to see people living in the community. The trusts provide a range of evidence-informed programmes for individuals who are awaiting assessment. For children and young people, early intervention teams deliver proactive needs-led programmes that are neurodiversity-affirming and trauma-informed. They include structured group interventions addressing common challenges such as managing anxiety or emotional regulation. Alongside that, we have targeted individual supports for families who have more complex needs. Trusts are also working in partnership with statutory, community and voluntary sector partners, adopting a "Think family" approach. Training and support is provided to local services, including Sure Start and family support hubs. That enhances community capacity to respond effectively.
Miss McAllister: I have submitted quite a number of questions for written answer on autism services, and the answers, sometimes on the same day from the Department, contradict themselves. The Minister often refers to the emotional health and well-being framework as the idea that will frame all of the uniform services. Will we ever get to a time when there will be services that are subjective to the individual but uniform in that, no matter where you live in Northern Ireland, whether Fermanagh or Belfast, if you have a child who is awaiting an autism diagnosis or has autism, you can avail yourself of a service that is open to everyone?
Mr Nesbitt: That is one of the intents of the Committee in Common. As the Member will know, the trusts were, in effect, set up under a sort of Thatcherite model of competition driving down price. That does not work for me. If I could start with a blank page or click my fingers, we would not have five geographically based trusts. We would have a geriatric trust, a paediatric trust and a mental health trust. That would be the best way to achieve regional consistency in service delivery and get rid of the postcode lottery. That will not happen, because such reorganisation would be so massive that it would slow down delivery at a time when we need to speed it up. The Committee in Common exists to perform the function of bringing those five geographically limited trusts together and asking, "Where is best practice, and how do we turn that into common practice?" so that we achieve what the Member refers to.
Mr Butler: How might the emotional health and well-being framework address the long waiting times highlighted by many young people and families?
Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member. We provide a range of services. Long waiting times were one of the prominent themes raised during the consultation on the emotional health and well-being framework. It takes action to address that. A key change is the move away from multiple single diagnostic pathways, which often create delays, duplication and inconsistency, towards a unified, needs-led neurodevelopmental pathway.
I want to see support. While waiting is a standard expectation, I want to ensure that children receive early help and early advice and brief interventions even before they reach the specialist team. Strengthening early intervention in schools, youth services and community settings means that many needs can be met sooner.
Mr Nesbitt: The role played by social workers in delivering safeguarding and family support interventions is complex and challenging. The work frequently pivots on multidisciplinary collaboration, with parents and carers positioned as partners in the formulation and delivery of safeguarding and support plans. Their work ensures that concerns are identified early; that interventions are proportionate and specifically focused on identified need; and that a correct balance is struck between respecting the role of parents and ensuring that children are protected from harm.
The independent review of children's social care services led by Professor Ray Jones reinforced our understanding of the wider systemic and structural challenges faced by social workers and other professionals working in the area. Twenty-five of the review recommendations are being progressed by the reform programme, including recommendations to improve support for families at an earlier stage as an alternative to high levels of protection activity by the trusts.
Ms Mulholland: Thank you, Minister. I am glad to hear you say that the role played by social workers is "complex and challenging". From what I hear from those who have contacted me, social workers are stretched to capacity. What is the Department doing to address that? Will you take the opportunity to refute your party leader's assertion that social work, in this context, is about a:
"woolly, nice sense of sitting down on a beanbag and chatting about it over a cuppa"? [Official Report (Hansard), 15 June 2026, p101, col 2].
That was exceptionally hurtful to a lot of social workers who got in contact with me.
Mr Nesbitt: I assure the Member that I very much value the work of social care workers, social workers and everybody who is delivering health and social care. I have often said that there are five elements in its delivery — buildings, beds, equipment, medicine and the workforce — and that the first four do not add up to a hill of beans if you do not have a workforce that is properly trained, properly motivated and well rewarded. Again, that takes me to the disappointment of not being able to implement the real living wage last September, as I had wanted to do.
I acknowledge that capacity pressures remain a significant concern across the HSC. Increasing acuity, rising demand and challenges in recruiting and retaining staff continue to place strain on teams. That impacts on the ability to deliver preventative work, which, of course, is what I want, and statutory safeguarding functions to the desired standards. Yes, we are far from where we need to be.
Mrs Dillon: I concur with all that was said by Sian Mulholland. It is complex and challenging, and social workers are dealing with many more cases than they should. There also cases that are unassigned, however, and there are safeguarding issues there. What reassurance can you give us, Minister, given the issues raised in the House in recent weeks, particularly around Muckamore, that the safeguarding of children and vulnerable adults is not at risk?
Mr Nesbitt: There will be a considerable amount of work over the remainder of the mandate. We have the adult safeguarding Bill, which was paused to allow us to absorb the recommendations — as it turned out, the 106 recommendations — from the Muckamore Abbey Hospital report. I also made a commitment to a statutory duty of candour for organisations. Westminster is passing the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, commonly known as the "Hillsborough law". It places a statutory responsibility on organisations and officials, and it makes misleading the public a criminal offence.
A lot of work is going on on patient and service-user safety. I assure the Member that, when I meet the leaders of the HSC tomorrow, I will make it absolutely explicit that, while there are huge pressures on balancing budgets and transforming shift left, for the remainder of my time as Minister the number-one priority will be patient safety.
Mr Chambers: Minister, I know that you fully agree that social workers perform an incredibly important and challenging role, especially those working in children's services. Will you provide an update on the number of such staff in post and how that has improved recently?
Mr Nesbitt: The children's social work workforce continues to experience significant pressures. However, there has been a modest increase in staffing over the past two years. In April 2024, there were 1,133·5 whole-time-equivalent band 5 to 7 social workers in post: as of April this year, that has increased to 1,199·8, which is an increase of 66·3 whole-time-equivalents. That is reflected across a number of health and social care trusts, although variation remains. Belfast increased from 215 to just over 263; Northern from 222 to 257; South Eastern from 226 to 229; Southern went from 210 to 192; and Western slightly decreased from 259·4 to 257·1. The figures demonstrate progress in increasing capacity in some areas, but pressures remain. I will continue to work with the trusts to strengthen recruitment and retention and work alongside wider reform efforts at reducing demand through earlier intervention and improved family support.
Mr Nesbitt: There has been significant improvement in endoscopy waiting times. Between 30 June 2025 and the end of March this year, a 35% reduction is reported in the number of patients waiting for the procedure, alongside a 92% reduction in the number waiting in excess of 78 weeks.
My Department continues to invest in endoscopy services, with £13 million allocated to the expansion of capacity in the elective care framework implementation and funding plan. That investment is expected to deliver an additional 16,500 procedures per year when fully implemented. The elective care framework outlined a plan for expansion of endoscopy capacity over three stages. The first was to commission vacant Monday-to-Friday sessions by March this year. The second stage will see expansion into 50-week working and evening sessions by March next year, with the third and final stage delivering expansion into weekend working.
Mr Burrows: Minister, I commend you for the substantial progress being made under your leadership and, more important, the work of the men and women of our great health service. Will you agree that it is important that we now go faster and further in trying to reduce waiting lists and improve access to the health service and do all that we can to build momentum, get a Budget agreed and deliver for the people?
Mr Nesbitt: I am grateful to Executive colleagues for accepting the argument I made to them that, having done well in the last financial year in exceeding many times over the Programme for Government target on addressing long waiting lists, we were in danger of losing momentum without a Budget. I am really grateful to them for agreeing that I can spend £80 million — £30 million more than last year — specifically on waiting lists.
Across the Executive, that is the only agreed Budget line for 2026-27. It will be used wisely in order to address long waits and to build capacity to try to ensure that waiting lists that are coming down do not go back up.
T1. Mr McGrath asked the Minister of Health whether he accepts that today's strike by resident doctors represents a failure of his leadership and the Executive's resolve to retain and value the medical workforce that our health service depends on. (AQT 2501/22-27)
Mr Nesbitt: No, I do not agree that the matter is down to me. When I came into post, the pay regime that was in place was clear: two independent bodies make recommendations on pay awards, one of which is for doctors and dentists, the other being for everybody else working in Health and Social Care (HSC). We were recommended a pay rise of 3·5% for doctors and dentists. I am happy to pay that once I have a budget. In fact, unlike previous Ministers and unlike in previous years, I made it clear that, as soon as I have a budget, the first thing that I will do, as the number-one priority, is to make the pay awards. That remains the case. That will have implications for service delivery, which the permanent secretary and I have agreed that we will simply have to deal with after we make the pay awards.
To go beyond the 3·5% that the three groups of doctors have rejected as inadequate is not in my gift. If I did so, it would be repercussive across the public sector, which the Member well knows.
Mr McGrath: Minister, regardless of where people stand on the exact figure, surely we can all agree that a health service cannot function without the doctors whom it trains. Resident doctors say that their pay has fallen significantly in real terms, and more than half of final-year medical students surveyed said they were considering leaving Northern Ireland because of pay and conditions. Today, patients are paying the price of the dispute in their treatment. Is today's strike not the clearest indictment yet of your handling of our health service, showing that, under your watch, it has become cheaper to lose doctors than to keep them?
Mr Nesbitt: Our responsible Opposition have spoken. I am not looking for a fight with anybody. Some 75,000 or 76,000 people deliver health and social care in this country. I would like them all to wake up feeling good about life, to get out of bed looking forward to going on shift and to go home at night thinking, "That was a good day. I did some good work, and I'm well rewarded in my terms and conditions". That is my ambition. I will try to deliver it within the constraints that I have outlined to the Member.
T2. Mr Buckley asked the Minister of Health, having noted that a litany of reviews, inquiries and inquests relating to individual health trusts and to the Department of Health have shone a bright light on glaring failures, rocking the confidence of many Members' constituents who rely on the health service daily, that the Member's constituent Lynsey Courtney was 30 years of age when, in 2018, she lost her life due to abject failures as part of the cervical screening scandal in the Southern Health and Social Care Trust and that, as the Minister will know, Lynsey's family — Ron and Sandra, Lynsey's parents, and her son, Callum — have called for accountability, what the Department can do to ensure that any concealment of wrongdoing will be dealt with appropriately. (AQT 2502/22-27)
Mr Nesbitt: I repeat my condolences; Lynsey and Erin lost their lives, and that should not have happened. I direct the Member to the report from Professor Frank Atherton, who assimilated all the other reports, which were conflicting in some of their conclusions. His conclusion was that it would not be appropriate to pursue individuals. That is the position of the Department of Health. The families may take a different view and pursue a different path.
Mr Buckley: Minister, time and time again, families have been failed. There is a growing call among all political parties in the House for an individual duty of candour. You mentioned a corporate duty of candour, but the families to whom I have spoken have said that that would preclude individuals who knowingly and wrongly covered up deeds. Will you ensure that you appropriately explore having an individual duty of candour to ensure that we can give comfort to families that wrongdoing will always be sought out?
Mr Nesbitt: First, I have mentioned tomorrow's health summit. That is about putting patient safety at the top of the list of priorities for the leadership of Health and Social Care. Secondly, on an individual duty of candour, I again refer the Member to the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, commonly known as the Hillsborough law, which is making its way through Westminster. It places a statutory duty of candour and assistance on public authorities and, I stress, officials, and there is a new criminal offence of misleading the public. I think that that satisfies what the Member is talking about when he mentions having an individual duty of candour, but we shall see, because the legislation has not yet completed its passage.
T3. Mr Bradley asked the Minister to Health to update the House on the progress made on delivering a thrombectomy service for patients served by the Causeway Hospital so that stroke patients in the north-west, or the "north-north-east", have the same opportunity to receive life-saving treatment from the critical golden hour as those elsewhere in Northern Ireland. (AQT 2503/22-27)
Mr Nesbitt: When I referred to the £80 million for waiting lists and building capacity, I made it clear that some of that money will be invested in turning the thrombectomy service into a 24/7 service. That should help the around 160 people every year who suffer a stroke potentially to walk out of hospital on the same day, with no side effects. I hope that that is to what the Member was referring.
Mr Bradley: Minister, you have partially answered my question, but it was really about the fact that, when services are centralised in the greater Belfast area, services are denied to those elsewhere in the Province. There has been a continued reduction in services across Northern Ireland because of their centralisation in Belfast. I will give you an example. Antrim Area Hospital is 14 miles from the best hospital services in Northern Ireland. The Causeway Hospital is 47 miles from Antrim. It does not make sense to me to reduce the possibilities for treatment by reducing the number of areas in which people can receive that treatment.
Mr Nesbitt: I will write to the Member if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that a patient suffering a stroke can be stabilised at the Causeway Hospital and then transferred to the thrombectomy service in Belfast. I gently point out to the Member that, by his logic, he is calling for an acute hospital at the end of every street, and that is simply not affordable.
T4. Ms Mulholland asked the Minister of Health, after stating that, even before the events of this week and last week, she had been writing to him for quite some time about safeguarding and the gaps in our safeguarding legislation, to commit to a review of our safeguarding legislation in order to make safeguarding training mandatory for anyone who has any involvement with children, young people and those at risk and to ensure that mandatory protective mechanisms are in place. (AQT 2504/22-27)
Mr Nesbitt: I hope that the Member does not expect me to make up policy on the hoof during Question Time. I will simply say to her that I will certainly take her question away with me. I have made the point many times during Question Time that I want to be much more vocal and open about saying that patient safety is the number-one priority. Safeguarding falls very much within that category.
Ms Mulholland: Safeguarding falls within your remit, Minister. We know that, but we also know that it is the responsibility of each and every one of us. That is part of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. Faith-based counselling is not subject to the same regulation as other clinical counselling services. That points to a real issue and a real risk. All that I want to do, Minister, is put that on your plate in order to make you aware. We need to look at that legislation and what we are doing to keep safe vulnerable children and those who are at risk. Will you commit to, at least, looking into faith-based counselling provision and regulations in particular?
T6. Mr Wilson asked the Minister of Health what he plans to do to prevent the reoccurrence of the temporary suspension of maternity services that occurred at Daisy Hill Hospital last weekend, which caused considerable concern in the community. (AQT 2506/22-27)
Mr Nesbitt: I am tempted to say to the Member that that is, of course, an operational matter for the Southern Trust. However, I take very seriously any unplanned interruption to service delivery. I am being told that the service was picked up in Craigavon Area Hospital. While that is an inconvenience, there were, as far as I am aware, no particular safety concerns at that time. In fact, it was due to staffing levels falling below safe levels at Daisy Hill that the service there had to be closed down for a period. That is regrettable. However, across Health and Social Care, recruitment and retention is an issue. The Member will have heard Mr Bradley suggesting that, perhaps, more services should be done regionally. That is a big challenge. For example, emergency general surgery at the South West Acute Hospital in Enniskillen was temporarily suspended because staffing levels were not safe.
Mr Wilson: Thank you for your answer, Minister. Do you agree that, for a mother who is about to give birth or who seeks medical attention from maternity staff for her unborn child, suspension of those vital services at short notice is the last thing that is needed in a time-pressured situation?
Mr Nesbitt: Again, I accept that it is regrettable. However, I think that the first thing that a woman in that situation needs to be told is, "We're taking you somewhere not that far away where a safe service is waiting for you and your baby".
T7. Mr Frew asked the Minister of Health to set out in detail the problem regarding Encompass and lost letters to GPs and patients. (AQT 2507/22-27)
Mr Nesbitt: As I understand it, there was a technical failure in what should have been a fail-safe system and a number of referrals were not issued. That is a matter of deep regret for me. However, those referrals were telling GPs that the consultant who was issuing the referral did not need to see their patient.
Mr Frew: I thank the Health Minister for that answer. Can he tell us the scale of the issue? I am led to believe that it affected just under 50,000 letters. Can the Health Minister confirm that number?
Mr Nesbitt: I cannot confirm that number because I am told that a bit of duplication was involved in the numbers. I am happy to write to the Member with an update on that. It was a significant number. In fact, one is one too many because Encompass is an incredibly expensive system. It just should not happen. Although the referrals were negative in that the consultant was saying, "I don't need to see your patient", there may have been occasions when the consultant was also saying, "but you may want to consider" some other course of action. Therefore, we should not be, in any way, dismissive of the breakdown in Encompass. The question that I am still asking is this: on top of a system failure with the machinery, was there also human error?
T9. Mr Blair asked the Minister of Health to provide information on what support mechanisms are in place for his constituents who are health workers from ethnic minority groups and have endured racist abuse and attacks in their workplace. (AQT 2509/22-27)
Mr Nesbitt: The primary support comes from the trusts because they tend to be the employer.
I was in Ballyclare, in the Member's constituency, during the week of the race riots, and I met an international colleague who runs an advice centre for ethnic health workers. I also went down the street and met a body that delivers healthcare in the community. Its workforce is pretty much 100% comprised of international workers, and it had had all its windows put in. That is just racism. I repeat: if our international colleagues decide that it is not worth the candle any more and up sticks and leave, our health service will collapse.
The trusts have a very practical attitude to that, looking at how you get to and from work. If you are no longer happy or content to take public transport and feel that doing so presents a risk, the trusts work hard to find alternative transportation for you. You may find an international colleague saying, "I do not want to work a particular shift because I do not feel safe getting to and from hospital". There is a degree of flexibility being applied by the management in the hospitals and the trusts, looking at practical measures to try to support our international colleagues.
Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): The consultation on my Department's draft road maintenance strategy ran from 2 December 2025 to 30 January this year. First, I thank all of those who engaged with the consultation and provided feedback, which has been very positive and constructive. Officials are in the process of finalising the consultation report and the road maintenance strategy, taking into account the consultation feedback and the Committee comments. I will publish both the final road maintenance strategy and the consultation report shortly. Once those are published, my Department will be in a stronger position to progress a modern, data-driven approach to road maintenance across the North.
Mr Wilson: I thank the Minister for her answer. It is, however, disappointing that MLAs will not get sight of the updated strategy before recess. Given the importance of the issue to our constituents, will the Minister outline how the strategy will address the role of utility companies in degrading road surfaces? I ask that due to the concern that there was no mention of utilities in the original document.
Ms Kimmins: As I said in my previous response, we have taken into consideration the comments and issues that were raised through the consultation process. That is an important part of the process. I have been engaging with officials on the role of utilities and how we improve reinstatements and make sure that they are more robust.
It is important to say that the new digital survey will play a key role, because we will have greater access to inspection and post-inspection on our roads as a result of its implementation. That will, I hope, address many of the issues that we are all very aware of around poor reinstatement and the impacts that it can have. I hope that, once we finalise that part of the process, we will be able provide a more fulsome answer on what we are doing, specifically in relation to utilities.
Miss Hargey: There appear to have been misrepresentation by Members in the House regarding £181 million that was returned to DOF. Can you clarify the situation, please?
Ms Kimmins: I really appreciate the opportunity to state the facts on that. It has been extremely disappointing to see senior figures in the UUP and some in the SDLP misleading the public on what the £181 million figure represented. Whether their doing so was deliberate is for them to answer Like every Minister and every Department has been doing for years, when money cannot be spent as it was intended —. In the past two financial years, the bulk of the £181 million that had to be handed back to the Department of Finance was related to the A5. That money was ring-fenced by the Department of Finance after agreement from the Executive. Therefore, I legally cannot decide to spend it on something else. Members know that but failed to include it in their social media clickbait. We were able to bid for that money when it was back centrally, and I was pleased to be able to secure £163 million of the £181 million. That went back into our roads, waste water infrastructure and public transport, and I used it and targeted it in the way that I could during the period that I have been Minister.
The Members across the way can laugh all that they want, but they know that they have deliberately misled the public by failing to present all of the facts around this, particularly when their own Minister has faced similar challenges. I want to make sure that that is well on the record so that the public know that if I seek to reprofile money that has to go through the Department of Finance. I will target whatever money I get in the right way.
Mrs Guy: Large parts of my constituency of Lagan Valley are rural in nature, so I am interested in understanding how the revised strategy will prioritise rural versus urban road maintenance needs.
Ms Kimmins: The Member will know that, on many occasions, I have highlighted rural needs in terms of road maintenance and our road network. I, too, represent a rural constituency, so I know that there are significant challenges with deterioration and the inability to address it in the way that we would expect. Those are the types of things that we will look at through the strategy. For example, we will look at how we can do repairs of better quality rather than, as I have said many times in the House, fixing one pothole that meets the criteria and skipping the 10 around it that do not. For me, that is duplication of work, in that we eventually have to go back to those potholes anyway. The cumulative impact of the new strategy, the digital survey and looking at road maintenance in a more holistic way will not just affect urban areas; it will positively impact on rural areas.
Mr McGrath: Minister, given that capital funding is, generally, being decimated, the extent of which may increase as a result of the Executive's not agreeing a Budget, what impact will that have on any final road maintenance strategy, and are any contingencies being put in place to manage that?
Ms Kimmins: As the Member knows, the Executive and, in particular, the Finance Minister are negotiating with the British Treasury to get a better deal for this place. It is not simply that the Executive are not agreeing a Budget; the Executive are standing up for people here to ensure that we get a better Budget that will enable us to deal with all the issues that, as the Member and many others here know, need to be addressed properly.
No funding figure is tied to the strategy. We know that there is a significant cost to properly maintaining our entire road network. All Ministers are working off a draft Budget. Obviously, we would prefer to have an agreed Budget that reflects our needs. We will continue to proceed with what we have, but I hope that the British Prime Minister, be it the outgoing one or the incoming one, whoever that might be, will sit up and listen to what the Fiscal Council, Executive and Assembly have said and see that we have been largely underfunded and need to be properly funded so that we can set the bar that little bit higher and proceed on a fair and equal footing for all the people whom we represent.
Ms Kimmins: I recognise that the Assembly process must complete before I comment in detail. However, it is important to recognise the real and sustained progress that my Department has made in recent years to strengthen flood risk management, including increased investment and continued improvement in the overall condition of flood defences. Alongside that, we are delivering a wide programme of measures through the flood risk management plan, with over half of planned actions already complete and others progressing, supported by enhanced data modelling and updated guidance to address climate change impacts.
The Audit Office report will be considered carefully through the proper Assembly process. That consideration should also recognise the substantial programme of work that has already been delivered and the continued commitment of my officials to reduce risk where possible. Examples include more than £76 million of capital investment over the past four years in new fluvial and tidal flood alleviation projects, reducing flood risk to more than 5,000 properties and delivering benefits of a value approaching four times their cost. The Department also continues to progress a 10-year capital works programme of over 50 projects, update flood maps where necessary, prioritise inspection and maintenance of high-consequence assets and advance schemes and studies in areas such as Newry, Downpatrick, Drumahoe, Antrim and Eglinton.
Ms Egan: Thank you, Minister. In my constituency of North Down, the town of Donaghadee is particularly at risk of flooding. Earlier this year, the sea wall crumbled because of the effects of storm Chandra. What will your Department do to ensure better flood defences in the area and build resilience against the inevitable harsher weather conditions?
Ms Kimmins: The Member will know that there is joint responsibility for coastal erosion and all of that. Officials have been engaging with those in the local area. I fully recognise that that presents challenges as time goes on. The work that I outlined in my previous answer shows that the picture is ever-changing, and we are trying to get ahead of it. We recognise that more and more areas that had never been impacted, have been or will be impacted in the not-so-distant future. That is why we have been doing significant work to be forewarned and proactive rather than reactive. Officials will continue to engage on the specific location raised by the Member. However, as she can see, the scale of the work is significant, and we are working to see how we can do things differently so that we can get ahead the issue.
Mrs Mason: Minister, you will be aware that flood alleviation schemes are assessed on a cost-benefit ratio which we know can be prohibitive and can prevent schemes from progressing. As we know only too well from flooding in our constituencies, in Newry and Downpatrick, such analysis does not always reflect the wider socio-economic impact that flooding has on people's homes. Do you have plans to change those criteria and make them more reflective of people's lived experience of flooding?
Ms Kimmins: Yes. As the Member mentioned, we have experienced the impact of flooding in both of our constituencies. That impact is not just from the damage to property or the effect on business; there is lasting impact on people, physically and emotionally, when their home or their business is flooded. There is always the anxiety — I hear it from people all the time — that flooding may happen again.
We spoke about the cost-benefit ratio at an engagement in Downpatrick last year. My Department recognised the concern that the traditional appraisal method, particularly the focus on the cost-benefit ratio, may not always have fully reflected the lived experience of individuals and communities that have been impacted by flooding. In response, we recently developed and introduced new appraisal guidance, which represents a significant and deliberate shift in approach. Under the previous arrangements, schemes were largely determined by a monetised cost-benefit ratio threshold where, typically, projects that fell below a ratio of one did not progress. However, as we have found, the new approach moves away from that very rigid position and allows for a broader, more balanced assessment of value, including social, environmental and carbon benefits, alongside traditional economic damages.
Schemes are no longer automatically ruled out where the monetised cost-benefit ratio is less than one, and appraisers can recommend investment where there is a strong case that is based on wider community impacts, including disruption, resilience and well-being. That change is intended to better reflect, as I mentioned, the real-world impacts of flooding on people's lives, which are not as easily captured through purely financial metrics. Although the Department will continue to keep its appraisal methodologies under review, the new approach represents an important step change, which will help to ensure that our investment decisions are more aligned with the experiences of those who have been affected by flooding and maintain robust and transparent value-for-money principles.
Mr Martin: Minister, the Northern Ireland Audit Office report is very critical of your Department on the topic of flood risk. You have just read out some interventions that your Department has made. The report's most substantial criticism is that your Department cannot show that its activities to build flood risk defences:
"are delivering long-term value for money in a systematic and comprehensive way."
What specific changes have you made to demonstrate that you are not just throwing good money after bad?
Ms Kimmins: I have outlined some of the issues that we are working to address. In my response to my colleague, I said that we are looking at the assessment criteria to ensure that we are investing properly and reducing impacts on people. It is also important to say that we cannot build our way out of flooding. It is something that many people will have to live with, as a result of climate change. Flooding is becoming more frequent, and we have seen the evidence of that, particularly in the past few years.
It is not always the case that physical interventions are required. That having been said, however, alongside the work that has been happening or is planned, we have invested over £76 million in capital in the past four years in new fluvial and tidal flood-alleviation projects, which have had an impact in reducing flood risk for more than 5,000 properties. We also look at how we build community resilience, and significant work has been done by community resilience groups, some of which have been really successful. That is about how we can be more prepared and work together in the event of flooding, particularly when it occurs at very short notice .
There is work for everybody to do. It is not just a DFI problem; it is something that affects everyone. We are working across a number of Departments and with local councils in order to ensure that we are addressing all of the issues that have been outlined. We have been working really hard to be prepared as best we can for the future, as well as looking at the physical interventions we can continue to make that will help protect people, homes and businesses for as long as possible.
Mr McNulty: There is a bit of a flood on the other side of the Chamber. [Laughter.]
Minister, how does your Department plan to address the growing number of households that are unable to afford flood insurance or cover but are still exposed to flood risk due to delays in updating flood maps?
Ms Kimmins: Insurance is not within my gift to address. However, the Member will be aware that we have a grant scheme for flood protection measures for homes that have been flooded. The work on flood maps is significant. As I have said previously, it continues to evolve as we deal with the extreme weather that we have seen, including in the past week. Across the globe, we are seeing significant heatwaves. Such things are coming at us all the time. We are doing a number of things to address the situation. As the Member will know, insurance is a reserved matter, and we cannot deal with it locally, but we are certainly focused on anything that we can do to reduce the risk.
Ms Kimmins: I recognise the Member's interest in the Larne West distributor (south) road and the local concerns about that incomplete section of road. As the Member will likely be aware, the road was identified through the Larne area plan and the earlier Larne West study as infrastructure to be delivered by the developers of the adjacent lands. A remaining links section has not been constructed and is still in private ownership. My Department's advice is that that is a private development issue. Responsibility for resolution rests with the relevant developers and the local authority, which is now Mid and East Antrim Borough Council. The Department does not have powers under the Private Streets (NI) Order 1980 to enforce construction of the missing section.
For more recent development in the Larne West area, the Department has ensured that traffic impacts are considered through the planning process. In the case of the new port development approval for around 500 dwellings, off-site road improvements have been conditioned, including traffic signals at Donaghy's Lane and Antiville Road. Roads officials are content that those works provide satisfactory access to the existing network. Officials have also examined options to improve traffic progression at the Linn Road and Antiville Road junction, but the scheme identified has proven to be cost-prohibitive, due to significant underground utilities. While some short-duration queuing is observed at peak times, officials advise that there are no significant issues at other times and that traffic generally moves satisfactorily during the day. My Department will continue to engage with the planning consultation process to ensure that traffic from further development is properly assessed and adequate mitigations are put in place.
Mr Donnelly: I thank the Minister for that answer. It will not satisfy the people of the area. The completion of the 3 km distributor road was planned to be a key part of the development, linking hundreds of houses to the wider road network, but, due to a planning issue by her Department in the 1990s, it never happened. Will she commit to visiting the area, reviewing the issue and working to resolve it for the growing number of people who are impacted on in Larne every day at those key traffic times, noting that the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman's (NIPSO) report said that vesting should not be ruled out?
Ms Kimmins: As I said, at this point, the issue is between the council and the developers. Ultimately, they can resolve it. My Department will continue to engage with the council, but, at this point, we do not have the power to intervene. It is important to make that clear. I have stated that in relation to the Private Streets Order. If, at a later date, there is an opportunity for us to intervene, I am happy to consider that, if it is within my tenure as Minister. The Member mentioned the time that has passed since the issue arose. Ultimately, the advice that I have been provided with is that the issue can be resolved between the developer and the council.
Mr Stewart: The infrastructure in Larne West is shambolic and fails residents and commuters daily. Minister, you will be aware of an ombudsman's investigation of the missing link road at Ballyloran that reported last February on the back of my office having brought the matter to it. The investigation found maladministration, and your Department was to redouble its efforts with Mid and East Antrim Borough Council and other stakeholders to bring about a resolution to the shambolic situation. As part of that, the Department was to process all considered options available and report to the ombudsman's office within six months: that was 18 months ago. I am one of the stakeholders; we have heard nothing. What is your Department doing about it?
Ms Kimmins: As I stated in my previous answer, the Department acknowledged the ombudsman's findings about the road. As the Member said, the ombudsman concluded that the failure to complete the road arose from the way in which development was allowed to proceed without the necessary planning controls or conditions having been put in place at that time. I cannot speak about something that happened 30-odd years ago, but I recognise that locals will not be happy with that response. I recognise that there are issues that need to be addressed. The report also noted, however, that that remaining link is undeveloped and in private ownership, which is why I explicitly set out who can work to resolve the issue.
The official advice, which is consistent with the ombudsman's findings, remains that it is a private development issue and that responsibility for resolution rests with the relevant developers and Mid and East Antrim Borough Council as the planning authority. My Department will continue to ensure that, through the planning process, traffic generated by further development in that area is appropriately considered and mitigated through off-site works, where required. We will continue to engage in the process to make sure that we do not contribute to any further problems.
Mr McHugh: Minister, how does the Department work with councils when road infrastructure forms part of a planning approval?
Ms Kimmins: As Members will be aware, my Department is a statutory consultee in the planning process, at which point it provides technical advice to councils on roads, access traffic and road safety matters. Councils, as the ultimate planning authority, are responsible for determining planning applications and attaching or enforcing planning conditions, where appropriate. The Department will continue to provide advice to councils to ensure that transport impacts are properly considered before development proceeds. The issue with the Larne road is a retrospective one, but, at this time, the planning authority is the council, and it has the power to deal with it.
Mr O'Toole: Minister, the Larne West distributor was supposed to have been delivered by developers 25 or 30 years ago. It is a developer-led project. As I understand it — I do not represent Larne — it involves a couple of hundred metres of unbuilt road. Does the farcical situation of that unbuilt road in Larne not give the lie to your somewhat preposterous notion that developers will meet the £2 billon funding shortfall facing Northern Ireland Water? If they cannot build a couple of hundred metres of road in Larne, how will they fund our waste water infrastructure, which is an issue that is holding back our economy?
Ms Kimmins: First, to clarify the Member's points, I have never said that developers were going to fund the £2 billion gap. I have said quite the opposite, which is that that is one way in which to make some progress in that regard. It is important that I put that on the record.
Secondly, it is a developer-led problem. If I were to take ownership of every issue that developers have caused, including unadopted developments, which is the same principle, I would have no money to do what I am meant to be doing, which I already struggle to do. While I take the Member's point, we are in a very difficult situation, in that we cannot pick up the pieces when a developer has failed to meet its responsibilities or a planning authority has failed to put in place proper mitigations. I have said that we will continue to engage with whomever we need to work with, but, ultimately, the solution to such things will be found between the council and the developer responsible.
Ms Kimmins: The issues surrounding the condition of the road network are well established. As I stated in my previous answer, I will shortly publish the new road maintenance strategy, which will put my Department in a much stronger position to progress a more modern, data-driven approach to road maintenance across the North. The resilience of the road network also requires adaptation to extreme weather events and reducing multiple risks, including flooding, erosion and slope failure, that we have seen in recent times. My Department is taking forward those risks through actions in the climate change action plan and the development of our first resilient road network plan, and it is working with the Climate Change Committee (CCC) and academic partners to keep planning and investment evidence-based.
Building long-term resilience into the road network also depends on having the right people with the right skills in place. That is why workforce recruitment and development is a key part of my approach. My Department's industrial recruitment campaign, alongside initiatives such as the skills academy and Talent Dog, will help us attract, train and retain staff for key engineering roles. That strengthens our capacity to plan and deliver inspections, design, programming and supervision, supporting a shift from what have been very reactive repairs towards timely preventative maintenance. Growing that pipeline also improves our ability to respond to disruption, including severe weather, by reducing gaps in cover and enabling faster mobilisation for safety-critical and emergency works. Taken together with my new road maintenance strategy, climate adaptation and new staff recruitment will support continuity of delivery, better value and a more resilient approach to maintaining the road network.
Ms Flynn: I thank the Minister for that response. As you outlined, Minister, a key part of creating a more resilient road network is having the workforce to deliver it. We know that British austerity has severely impacted on our workforce in DFI, creating an over-reliance on contractors and driving up the cost of works as a result. I know that the Minister wants to change that. Minister, will you update us on the progress of your recent recruitment campaign for road workers?
Ms Kimmins: Recruitment is a key challenge faced by all Departments. In questions to the Minister of Health, my colleague from Newry and Armagh referred to the recruitment issue that recently impacted on Daisy Hill. The challenge is not unique to DFI. I want to put a focus on ensuring that we build our internal capacity and improve staffing levels.
Our industrial road workers undertake vital operational services. The recruitment campaign that we recently completed further demonstrates the commitment, which I share, to improving our network for the benefit of all road users. As I have told the House before, we had a number of interview open days in Ballymena at the end of April. Appointments are likely to be made by the end of the month — that is tomorrow — following successful completion of the pre-employment process. We were pleased that there was a positive response to the recruitment campaign, with over 500 applications submitted when the campaign was advertised and around 300 people invited to interview over those two days. That new approach is a good way of fast-tracking people in to do the work. I hope that, as we head into the autumn, we will see a real improvement that will help to build resilience and that we can get out and tackle some of the key issues with road maintenance, gully-emptying and all the things that will present further challenges if they are not addressed in a timely manner.
I am positive about this. The response to the recruitment campaign in itself shows that there is a real appetite among people to join the Department and get involved in the work. I hope that, in conjunction with all the other work that we are doing on road maintenance, that recruitment will make a real and tangible difference for people.
Mrs Erskine: Quality assurance is really important when looking at roads. A number of us in the Chamber could take you to potholes that we have raised with the Department that have been fixed but have then reopened within a matter of days, meaning that we have had to go back into the portal to raise it with DFI staff again. That causes real frustration. I could take you to Camgart Road in Clabby, about which I have raised issues a number of times. That road now has to be resurfaced because it has so many potholes. Specifically how many road inspectors will you employ? That is vital to quality assurance in your Department.
Ms Kimmins: We all share that frustration. Many repairs are temporary until such times as a more impactful repair can be done. The Member mentioned resurfacing: there are roads everywhere that would benefit from resurfacing. Obviously, budget has an impact on that. We are trying to get a better Budget so that we can do it properly and do not have to go back time and time again.
To speak to what I have said already during the session, there is no one quick fix; it is about what we can do to address the issue as a whole. I talked about how the new strategy would look at bigger patching, which would address many of those issues earlier. The digital survey will take away some of the manual work involved in those inspections so that we can identify issues at a much earlier stage than the point that you referred to in your question, when the issue is beyond repair and fuller works are needed. Those things will help to build in resilience so that we do not see this situation year-on-year and do not have workers going to the same location time and time again, which is a waste of money and resource. We are looking at how we can better use digital technology to make the work that we do more effective and efficient as well as at how we can target our funding and resources more effectively.
On the matter of roads inspectors specifically, the recruitment campaign was for industrial road workers. That covers a range of tasks. I am of the opinion that that, coupled with the digital survey, will have a better impact on how we respond to the issues in a more timely fashion and that it will make us more responsive. We will know the exact number of people who will be employed through that recruitment process once it concludes.
Ms Kimmins: Road safety is a high priority for my Department, and we are committed to working proactively to make our roads safer and to address the needs of all road users. The Creenagh bridge replacement and significant realignment represented a £1·9 million investment by my Department to improve safety for pedestrians and road users on the A45 Ballynakilly Road between Coalisland and the M1 motorway. It will also assist with heavy goods vehicle movement and improve commercial connectivity in that area. This substantial investment also includes the construction of an active travel footway for 270 metres over the scheme linking to the Ballynakilly Road, which will deliver significant benefits for residents and road users who travel through the area. These schemes demonstrate my commitment to improving our road and active travel networks, which are vital for connecting our businesses and communities. As with all changes to the road network, my officials will continue to keep the operation of the new road layout under review.
The Department has recently been made aware of concerns regarding inconsiderate driver behaviour, including speeding, and have referred those to the PSNI. Our partners in the police have indicated that the site is being considered for the safety camera van. My Department will in the meantime organise a traffic survey of the site, and that will help to inform whether further interventions are required.
T1. Mr McNulty asked the Minister for Infrastructure, having pointed out that his question for written answer on dual Irish-English road signage remains unanswered, to detail when dual Irish-English road signs in Newry and Armagh and, indeed, across the North will be erected. (AQT 2511/22-27)
Ms Kimmins: As the Member is fully aware, I am in the middle of a legal case around dual-language signage, so, at this time, it would be inappropriate to comment on that.
Mr McNulty: Minister, I thought that our Irish language was a priority for you and your Department. How are you working to give the Irish language its proper place? Surely you can see the merits of aligning road signage throughout this island.
Ms Kimmins: Absolutely. I absolutely want to see how we can continue to ensure that the Irish language thrives and is visible. However, as the Member will appreciate, it is my priority that we continue with the current legal challenge and that we have a successful outcome. I do not want to jeopardise that in any way by making comments on what is clearly political point-scoring.
T2. Mr Chambers asked the Minister for Infrastructure to detail her departmental process for identifying faded road markings and arranging for refreshment, and to say whether she is satisfied that the system is working. (AQT 2512/22-27)
Ms Kimmins: The issue of responding to queries on road markings has come up a number of times, and I know that there are many areas that are currently on a list. With the road markings contractor, we are very limited in the resource that we have available. The Member has written to me recently about some areas that have been waiting for too long, and I am happy to follow that up again.
Mr Chambers: Minister, I sent a question for written answer in May 2025. You told me that your officials had identified a problem on the A48 in November 2024 and that a works order had been issued. In March 2026, I reminded you that that work had not been carried out, and you told me that a work instruction had been overlooked and that, since it was weather-dependent, you could not give me a date but that the contractor would prioritise it. We are now coming into July 2026, and the work still has not been carried out. Is that a typical case, Minister?
Ms Kimmins: Not that I am aware of. However, I do share the Member's frustrations about the length of time that it has taken, particularly the fact that it has been overlooked. I will endeavour to follow that up with officials today because, particularly now that weather conditions have improved, now is the time. If we can get a date for that, I will be happy to provide that to the Member.
T3. Mr T Buchanan asked the Minister for Infrastructure what assessment she or her Department has carried out of the environmental damage that has been caused throughout the very heart of his constituency of West Tyrone by the total destruction of acres of farmland for the A5 western transport corridor, which is now lying as a wilderness. (AQT 2513/22-27)
Ms Kimmins: As the Member will be aware, my officials have been engaging very closely with landowners regarding what the situation will be during the time that the legal process continues. I hope that that will be concluded very soon. The Member will know that we had two hearings last week regarding the A5. Many of those landowners will have been offered options of what we can do in the interim in the hope that we can get agreement to allow the legal case to proceed and conclude before taking further steps.
Mr T Buchanan: Minister, under your watch, many miles of posts and wire fencing were put up along the A5 western transport corridor. However, in the past few weeks, a good bit of that has been removed by a mechanical digger and pushed into a pile for dumping. Do you accept that that is an outrageous waste of public money — it happened under your watch — especially when you consider that we have some of the worst roads in western Europe?
Ms Kimmins: I would need more information on the exact location where that happened. At this point, I am not aware of it. We can look into it and see —.
Ms Kimmins: It is my view that everything has stopped while the case is under way. If the Member writes with more detail, we can get more information.
T4. Mr Buckley asked the Minister for Infrastructure, given that she will be aware of the plight of the owners of homes in a small number of unfinished and unadopted developments across Northern Ireland, one of which is Birchwood Manor — a 23-house development in his constituency that has remained unfinished for close to 15 years and on which he has engaged extensively over a number of years with the Department and the Minister — and noting that a developer going bust means that there is not enough money in the bond to ensure adequate waste water facilities, what she and the Department, in conjunction with Northern Ireland Water, can do to alleviate the anxiety and safety concerns of local residents, including his constituents. (AQT 2514/22-27)
Ms Kimmins: As the Member knows, an estimated 860 unadopted developments across the North are defined as sites requiring enforcement action under article 11 of the Private Streets Order. The Member will know that, in an effort to try to address what has been an issue for many, I have, as I have outlined, brought in updated policy guidelines. I understand that that will not give great comfort to those who have been in such a situation, but it is recognition that this is a significant issue and that we need to find ways to ensure that it does not happen to more people in the future. The issue that the Member has spoken about is one on which, where possible, there should be continued engagement with NI Water. The Member says that the developer has gone bust, but I am not sure of the specifics around that. Ultimately, this is the responsibility of the developer, and it needs to be addressed. We can offer support in the form of advice or guidance, but, ultimately, that is where the solution will be found.
Mr Buckley: Minister, I am sure that you agree that we cannot continue to leave residents in limbo. There has to be some progress on the matter. A number of unfinished developments have been lying stagnant for a long time, but the number is so small that it would not require that great an amount of money to ensure adequate facilities for residents, even to ensure that they could pass their home on to their child should anything happen. This is a 23-house development. Will you engage directly with me on the development to see whether we can find a solution that allows us to meet halfway in order to ensure that the residents can get on with their lives and live in safety in their own homes?
Ms Kimmins: I do not underestimate how difficult it is for families, particularly when they have worked extremely hard to buy a house and get a mortgage. They hope that they can raise their family there. I cannot imagine how challenging and awful that must be. If we could do more at this time, we would. I appreciate that the Member says that it is a smaller development and that it may not cost that much, but lots of developments are in the same situation. We cannot cherry-pick one and leave another in the same scenario. The Member knows how much funding would be required to do that fairly. If the Member wants to write in, we can speak to officials to see what else we can offer by way of advice. The point here is that it is the developer who is responsible for addressing the situation. That is the bottom line. That is the situation for all such developments across the North.
T5. Mrs Erskine asked the Minister for Infrastructure how concerned she is about the lack of capacity for housebuilding across Northern Ireland? (AQT 2515/22-27)
Ms Kimmins: A number of significant issues have led to that scenario. I assume that the Member is referring to waste water capacity. I have said that NI Water has suggested that it needs between £3·5 billion to £3·6 billion for the next price control period. That in itself demonstrates the significant investment that is needed to enable us to deliver properly on the capacity constraints across the North.
I developed a paper, which I brought to the Executive recently, and got Executive agreement that that issue should be prioritised, and I will come later with costings for that. That is an issue for the Executive, not just for DFI, because it affects housebuilding and the social housing targets of the Member's colleague in the Department for Communities. It affects Health and Education, and we need to get to grips with it. As I have told the House before, I have taken forward other ways to reduce pressure on the system. Ultimately, however, what is required is significant investment that will allow proper upgrades to ensure that we not only unlock capacity but future-proof waste water infrastructure.
Mrs Erskine: Minister, you did not mention the removal of the zero-detriment policy, which is a concern that I have. That is worrying for anybody who sits in the Chamber, and for the construction industry in particular. I got a response from you today, to a question for written answer, stating that with the removal of the zero-detriment policy, an estimated 80% of house enquiries that can currently be supported will not be able to be connected. That is huge. That means that people will not be able access housing in Northern Ireland. It is vital that that policy remains in place for the construction industry. Minister, in the same answer, you indicated that you are doing all that you can to get more money to increase capacity, but you have been trying for some time. The money is not coming — there is no magic money tree — so will you urgently ask the AERA Minister to rethink that policy change because it will have a massive impact on the economy in Northern Ireland?
Ms Kimmins: As the Member rightly said, removal of the zero-detriment policy is for the AERA Minister, and I have engaged with the Minister on that, as well as on the removal of the statement of regulatory principles and intent. I recognise that removing that would have detrimental impact on future development. That needs to be considered carefully before any decision is taken by the Minister, and the real impacts of that need to be thought through.
We talked about the need for investment. It is important to say that the removal of zero-detriment in a way that would mean that NI Water would be fined would, in many ways, be counter-intuitive because it would impact on the budget further. That engagement with the Minister will continue, and I have stressed how that would have a significant impact and that we need to find a way forward. I recognise the environment responsibilities of the Minister's role, and we all have a part to play in that. However, we do not want to take a decision that could have a more detrimental impact across the board than is already the case.
T6. Mr Frew asked the Minister for Infrastructure, given the problems that she has with the nonsense net zero policy stalling major infrastructure works, to outline how that has affected North Antrim. (AQT 2516/22-27)
Ms Kimmins: I do not know how it will have affected North Antrim specifically unless the Member is referring to something in particular. We all have a responsibility in climate change and what we do to try to mitigate its impacts. We have seen extreme heat across the world in the past few weeks, and nobody can deny that change is happening that we have to get to grips with regardless of what position we take on climate change. We all have work to do on our environmental responsibilities. It is collective work and not something that can be done in isolation, and it can be achieved collectively.
The Member is asking about North Antrim, which is a broad question. Certainly, I recognise that we have to adhere to our responsibilities, and if we do that work together, there is no reason why we cannot achieve the targets that have been set.
Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for her answer. I asked the question because I fear that the backlog of work that has to be done on the A5, the Enniskillen bypass and everything that has been held up because of net zero policies will impact on all constituencies; I simply asked about North Antrim. Given that the Minister might not be able to spend a lot of capital money this year because of the hold-up in works, how will she negotiate the budget with her colleague the Finance Minister? Does she agree with her colleague that the Finance Minister's Budget is not adequate?
Ms Kimmins: The Executive and the Assembly agree that the Executive's Budget is not adequate, which is why we are in that negotiation. When it comes to the capital budget, we have to factor in a timeline for the legal challenge that we are going through. It is unlikely that we will get a decision from the court on this side of the summer recess. In my financial planning, I have stepped through what that means for what we could achieve and what we may not achieve. We would always have built that into our budget for this financial year.
Given that the Member alluded to the A5 project holding up other developments, it is important to point out that the process has been delayed not by net zero policy but as the result of a legal challenge. My priority is to get a successful outcome, to move on and to do so swiftly.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Blair] in the Chair)
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Speaker has received notice from the Minister for Infrastructure that she wishes to make a statement. Members are reminded that they must be concise in asking questions. Long introductions will not be allowed.
Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): In compliance with section 52 of the NI Act 1998, I will make a statement on the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) inland waterways meeting that was held at Waterways Ireland headquarters in Enniskillen on 29 May 2026. The Executive were represented by me, as Minister for Infrastructure, and junior Minister in the Executive Office Joanne Bunting. The Irish Government were represented by James Browne, Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage. The statement has been agreed with junior Minister Bunting, and I make it on behalf of both of us. Minister Browne chaired the meeting, and the following is a note of what was discussed.
We welcomed the progress achieved by Waterways Ireland since the previous meeting of the council in the inland waterways sectoral format, including the ongoing work on phase 3 of the Ulster canal restoration project. We noted progress on other projects, including the construction of a new depot in Tullamore and the repurposing of the former site; the five-year maintenance plan for the Barrow navigation; and the replacement of the Camden sea lock gates.
We noted developments on the Royal canal greenway and the Grand canal greenway in Dublin. Updates were provided on the planning submission for the Shannon greenway, research on visitor monitoring using the Royal canal greenway and the continuing work of reviewing the Shannon navigation and canals by-laws.
We acknowledged Waterways Ireland's development of a sustainability road map to create clear action plans across the organisation, the ongoing transition of its fleet vehicles from fossil fuels to hydrotreated vegetable oil and the development of a water management strategy.
We recognised that, in 2026, for the seventh consecutive year, Waterways Ireland reached the finals of the Green Awards in the category of public-sector organisation of the year.
We noted that the end-of-year water framework directive reports for the canal network in 2025 show that the water quality of the canals assessed has remained good since the previous assessment and that Waterways Ireland has developed a tree management strategy that addresses the immediate safety risks posed by diseased trees and the longer-term requirement to restore hedgerow continuity and habitat connectivity along the waterways, including through managing ash dieback along its waterway network.
We consented to the granting of a number of property disposals.
We noted the updated position with the Ulster canal restoration project and the extension of the navigable waterways network as a result of the restoration of the Ulster canal from Lough Erne to Clones. We acknowledged the amenity that has been created in Clones around the marina, which provides a public space for the use of the local community and visitors, and the potential economic benefits as a result of the facilities provided, including moorings for 36 boats at Clones and along the route of the Ulster canal once the restoration project is complete.
We noted the continued progress on the construction of the Narrow Water bridge between Cornamucklagh in County Louth and Warrenpoint in County Down.
We agreed to hold the next meeting in the inland waterways sectoral format in winter 2026.
Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister for her statement. I welcome the progress that has been outlined today on major waterways projects, including the Ulster canal project.
Minister, you will be aware that a joint working group involving Newry, Mourne and Down District Council and Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon (ABC) Borough Council has been set up to prioritise the regeneration of the Newry canal. Earlier this month, the working group agreed to write to you and the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to seek the establishment of a multi-agency task force to help drive forward that regeneration project. Will you commit to throwing your full support and that of your Department behind that effort by backing the establishment of the task force and by working proactively with local councils and partners, including the Department of the Taoiseach's Shared Island unit, to realise finally the enormous economic, tourism and environmental potential —
Ms Kimmins: Where do I start? The Member will know that, when I was on the council, we championed the need to further enhance and, indeed, maximise the potential of the Newry canal. With the Newry city park moving closer to construction and other work happening in the area, there is a real opportunity for us to do that. One of the things that we did when I was on the council was to create that linkage between ABC Borough Council and Newry, Mourne and Down District Council, because we recognised that regeneration of the canal concerns both council areas.
The letter has not come to me directly yet. It may be with officials at this time. I will certainly look out for it, because I am happy to get behind anything that we can do to support the project.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Before we move on, this is a subtle reminder to Members that, if they are asking a question, they should have been present for the full ministerial statement. That is especially important if the Member has the first question, because Members who are not in for the full statement may not be called at all.
Miss Dolan: Minister, thank you for your statement. Last week, the Irish Government announced a further €30 million investment in the Ulster canal restoration project. That is transformative for the communities along the route and will benefit local economies and tourism. What is the current position of the Ulster canal project?
Ms Kimmins: The Ulster canal project is being progressed in three phases. Phase 1, which is from Lough Erne to Castle Saunderson, and phase 2, which is from Clones to Clonfad, are both now complete and open for navigation. Work on the third and final phase, which is from Castle Saunderson to Clonfad, is in progress. Pre-construction work, including the acquisition of land, is under way. Phase 3 is subdivided into four sub-phases, and the current estimated completion date for all sub-phases is 2028-29. I am fully committed to supporting the completion of that ambitious project, which is transformational for communities and businesses in the region.
All funding for the project to date has been provided by the Irish Government, including funding through the Shared Island Fund. I welcome that recent announcement of a further allocation of €30 million from the Shared Island Fund for the project. Junior Minister Bunting and I had an opportunity to see the work that has been done and what is planned for the future. What can be achieved through collaboration across this island is not just ambitious but very exciting. I will continue to support the project in any way in which I can to ensure that we see its full realisation.
Mr Martin: Minister, you have consented to the granting of a number of property disposals. It would be helpful if you can provide some further information on their location, the types of disposals that you have approved and whether they are cost-neutral.
Ms Kimmins: At the meeting, the Council approved four disposals: a 99-year lease to Kildare County Council to facilitate the construction of a pedestrian/cycle bridge to Rathangan in County Kildare; an extension of the benefit of the existing way leave to Oakway Millview 2 Ltd; a 20-year extension to existing leases for an area of the Shannon navigation at Lavagh, Carnadoe and Roosky in County Roscommon; and a 99-year lease to Kildare County Council to facilitate the construction of the pedestrian/cycle bridge near the eighteenth lock at Landenstown in County Kildare. At this time, there is no requirement under the North/South Co-operation (Implementation Bodies) Order 1999 for us to approve any disposal of properties in the North.
Mr McMurray: Minister, various greenway projects are mentioned in your statement. Those projects are to be welcomed. Recently, Newry, Mourne and Down District Council announced a feasibility study, part-funded by DFI, for a greenway between Warrenpoint, Kilkeel and Newcastle. Will you raise that potential project at your next North/South Ministerial Council meeting?
Ms Kimmins: I have given my statement on the most recent North/South Ministerial Council meeting, where we discussed cross-border greenways. The plans for Warrenpoint are excellent. It is really good to see that project moving on. I know that the consultation opened recently. It will potentially come up at the next meeting. It may not be specifically cross-border but it links with the Narrow Water bridge, as you said, so there is cross-border potential. We have seen the success of the Carlingford lough greenway. I love to remind Ministers at NSMC meetings of just how successful it has been and how it has revitalised everywhere along its route. Recently, I completed my first parkrun on the Carlingford lough greenway. A greenway has so many different uses and is a fantastic asset to any community. I look forward to seeing what comes next for the one that the Member mentioned.
Mrs Erskine: I thank the Minister for her statement and hope that she enjoyed her visit to Enniskillen. The statement mentions moorings. I want to focus on the Fermanagh end of the Ulster canal. I have received communication about accessible jetties and ensuring that jetties and moorings are up to standard. That is vital for tourism at the Fermanagh end. It is important for the linkage between the canal and the Erne water system. Has ensuring that we have proper and accessible jetties at the Fermanagh end been part of the discussion?
Ms Kimmins: That is part of the works that are being carried out along the route. If there are specifics, I can get more information on those. I do not have that level of detail, but I am happy to come back to the Member on what has been done and whether there are plans where there are areas that potentially need upgrades or repairs.
Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for her statement. With approximately 15% of the entire Waterways Ireland estate located in Northern Ireland, I am keen to establish any detail that you may have on the scale of immediate safety risks, with regard to diseased trees in Northern Ireland specifically, that are linked to the tree management strategy, which you mentioned in your statement.
Ms Kimmins: As I said, Waterways Ireland has worked out its strategy for how to deal with that. As the Member will know, that is an important aspect of the work. Given the significant Waterways Ireland area that is in the North, we can come back with more detail on what exactly is covered as part of that strategy and how it impacts on areas north of the border.
Mr Harvey: Minister, is completion of the Narrow Water bridge development still set for the end of 2027? Is it anticipated that the project will remain within budget?
Ms Kimmins: Yes. As the Member will know, construction started in May 2024. Its planned substantial completion date is still late 2027, with the final handover due in early 2028. Works are proceeding to schedule. I am really pleased with that. Anyone who lives in or visits the area can see that the project is moving very quickly. It creates a sense of excitement about what that will mean for the area. I am not aware of any challenges with the budget. It is important to note that it is proceeding as scheduled. Hopefully, we will see it sooner rather than later.
Mr O'Toole: As a Member said, the statement mentions greenways. It also mentions a waterway. One waterway — or kind of a waterway — in my constituency is Knockbracken reservoir. It is better known these days as Let's Go Hydro. I believe that the Minister visited Carryduff and that part of the world recently. A long-overdue addition to Carryduff and that part of BT8 is a Carryduff greenway. Do you plan to release funds for a Carryduff greenway? What progress has been made? The people in that area have been crying out for developments on a Carryduff greenway for far too long.
Ms Kimmins: That was a very poor attempt to link your question to the statement. Look: work is ongoing with the council on that greenway. I was delighted to visit Carryduff last week. I know that the area is really growing, with families and others moving in. I met my party colleagues Deirdre Hargey and local councillors Ryan Carlin and Daniel Bassett there. There is a real appetite for that change in Carryduff, particularly as it is very congested with traffic. The greenway is one of those projects that, I think, we will see being realised.
As the Member knows, greenways are very much typically led by councils, so there is more work to do at council level, but we will support it in any way that we can through our active travel delivery plan.
[Translation: Mr Deputy Speaker,]
I apologise for not being in the House from the beginning of the statement and thank you for your latitude on that.
Thank you, Minister. You have outlined some of the benefits that Waterways Ireland ownership can bring to waterways and local communities. Are there any plans to extend the remit of Waterways Ireland to include Lough Neagh? Surely that can only be a positive for the health of the lough, for tourism and for the economic potential of the lough.
Ms Kimmins: As the Member knows, at this point in time Lough Neagh is not within the remit of Waterways Ireland. However, I am exploring that. As the Member has said, we have seen the benefits of Waterways Ireland ownership in Clones following the work done there on the Ulster canal. That has helped to bring recreational amenity and tourism benefits to that community. I want to explore how that could be replicated around Lough Neagh, including the expansion of the Ulster canal restoration to include Lough Neagh. As we progress through that exploratory work, I will be happy to keep Members updated.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, that concludes questions on the statement. Please take your ease for a moment until we get people in place for the next item.
That the Statutory Parental Bereavement Pay (General) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2026 be approved.
[Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.]
I seek the Assembly's approval for the Statutory Parental Bereavement Pay (General) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2026. The rule was made on 19 March and came into operation on 20 March. It is before the Assembly today under the confirmatory procedure, and I am grateful to the Committee for the Economy and to the Examiner of Statutory Rules for their scrutiny of the rule. The rule was made with the concurrence of HMRC, and I thank it for its assistance.
I am also grateful to Members who contributed to the debate and passage of the Parental Bereavement Leave and Pay (Miscarriage) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2026. Those regulations extended parental bereavement leave and pay to parents who experienced pregnancy loss before 24 weeks, alongside existing provision for stillbirth and the death of a child before their 18th birthday. They were unanimously approved by the Assembly on 24 March 2026 and came into operation on 6 April 2026.
In my former capacity as Chair of the Economy Committee, I proposed that parental bereavement leave and pay should be extended to workers and employees who experience miscarriage and that the full entitlement should be available from the first day of employment. The Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Act 2022 placed a statutory obligation on the Department for the Economy to make those changes by 6 April 2026. The regulations before the Assembly today are a key part of that implementation and ensure the continued operation of the statutory parental bereavement pay framework. The policy objective is clear: to support bereaved working parents at a time of profound loss and provide a minimum standard of protection in law.
Parental bereavement leave and pay are important employment rights. They recognise that grief is deeply personal and that working parents should not have to carry the additional pressure of losing income when they step away from work. Together, the 2026 reforms strengthen that support. They reflect the Assembly's commitment to an employment rights framework that is compassionate, practical and responsive to the realities faced by bereaved parents and their families.
The confirmatory procedure means that the regulations before the House today have come into operation before the Assembly debate has taken place and must then be approved by the Assembly within the relevant statutory period. In this case, the deadline for approval is 20 September 2026. It is therefore right that the Assembly now has the opportunity to consider and decide on the regulations.
By way of brief background, the policy to which the regulations relate builds on earlier consultation and legislative action to establish parental bereavement leave and pay. The aim has been consistent: to provide that support to working parents through the statutory right to leave, together with an associated statutory payment framework. The regulations update that statutory parental bereavement pay framework by removing the expiry provision and ensuring that the scheme continues seamlessly as we transition to a day-1 entitlement for bereaved parents in line with the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Act 2022. That supports our wider legislative efforts to provide clear, effective support, including strengthened miscarriage provisions, and guarantees that working parents who face bereavement retain protected access to statutory pay. The regulations are now before the Assembly for approval, reflecting our commitment to compassionate and robust workplace rights.
I commend the following set of regulations to the Assembly for approval. The Statutory Parental Bereavement Pay (General) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2026 amend the existing statutory parental bereavement pay framework by omitting regulation 37, which is titled "Expiry", from the Statutory Parental Bereavement Pay (General) (No. 2) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2023. The expiry provision was originally included to reflect the transitional nature of the scheme when entitlement to statutory parental bereavement pay was subject to additional qualifying conditions, including a 26-week employment requirement. The Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Act 2022 required those conditions to cease no later than 6 April 2026, when the pay entitlement became a day-1 right. The amendment ensures the continued operation of those regulations and forms part of a wider package of legislative measures establishing statutory parental bereavement pay as an entitlement for bereaved parents. In particular, the regulations were brought forward to ensure that the existing pay framework can continue in operation and to support the wider 2026 changes, including the strengthened arrangements associated with miscarriage provisions and the move to a day-1 right to statutory parental bereavement pay.
The regulations are before the Assembly, as I said, under the confirmatory procedure and require Assembly approval. They form part of the measures intended to ensure that bereaved parents continue to have access to a clear and effective statutory parental bereavement pay framework. I commend the regulations to the House.
Mr Brett (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Economy): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I commend the regulations and rules to the Assembly on behalf of the Committee. As the Minister articulated, the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 introduced a statutory entitlement to 10 days of parental bereavement leave, together with a statutory payment for eligible working parents who have experienced a stillbirth from the twenty-fourth week of pregnancy or the death of a child up to their 18th birthday. The Assembly recently extended those entitlements to those who experienced a miscarriage up to the end of the twenty-third week of pregnancy.
The first statutory rule, SR 2026/58, amends other regulations and removes unnecessary expiry arrangements. The second statutory rule, SR 2026/74, provides for new definitions to facilitate the inclusion of miscarriage in parental bereavement leave and pay and makes consequential amendments to the leave and pay regulations. The rules were considered by our Committee in April 2026. The Committee was unanimous in its support for the measures, which support the needs of parents in the most difficult situations. On behalf of the Committee, I am therefore pleased to commend both statutory rules to the House.
In my role as a DUP MLA, I pay tribute to the Minister and her officials for bringing the rules forward in a timely manner. The outworkings of the rules date back to 2021, when the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill was introduced by my colleague Diane Dodds, the then Minister and Member for Upper Bann, who was supported by the now Minister and then Chair of the Committee, Dr Archibald. On behalf of the Committee and my party, I pay tribute to all involved in that important work, and I recommend that the Assembly vote for the regulations.
Ms McLaughlin: At first glance, the regulations appear to be highly technical, but behind them is something profoundly important. They are about ensuring that parents who experience the unimaginable loss of a child do not lose access to the support that, the Assembly has already agreed, they should receive.
None of us wants to imagine being put in that position. The death of a child is one of the greatest tragedies that any family could experience. While no amount of leave or financial support can ever ease that grief, we have a responsibility to ensure that parents are given the time and dignity to begin processing such an unimaginable loss without the immediate pressure of returning to work. That is what parental bereavement leave and pay are designed to do.
The regulations simply remove an expiry provision that was included when the original scheme was introduced as an interim arrangement. At that time, it was always intended that those provisions would be temporary while the longer-term framework was put in place, and now we have reached that point. Removing the expiry clause ensures that there is no interruption to statutory parental bereavement pay and that everyone who is entitled to that support can continue to receive it. It is a small legislative change, but it provides certainty for employers, the Department and, most important, bereaved parents.
The SDLP has consistently supported stronger employment rights and workplace protections. We have also been clear that our employment law should recognise that workers are people first, with families and everything that goes with that. They have families, and they face life's joys and its deepest sorrows, and our laws should reflect that reality with compassion. The amended regulations do exactly that. They ensure continuity, remove uncertainty around legal barriers and give effect to what was always intended when the legislation was put in place. I thank the Minister and, as mentioned by Phillip Brett, the Minister in the previous mandate, for working towards what we have today. The SDLP is happy to support the regulations.
Mr Delargy: I echo what other Members have said. Compassion is at the heart of the regulations, which are about understanding and ensuring that parents and families who have suffered the most heartbreaking and unimaginable grief are supported through one of the most difficult times in their lives. As a member of the Committee for the Economy, I thank the Minister for bringing the regulations forward and the Committee colleagues and departmental staff who have supported the Committee through the process and for supporting parents and families through an extremely difficult time.
The parental bereavement leave and pay regulations offer some assurance at a time of uncertainty, tragedy and unspeakable pain for parents and wider family circles. The regulations have been extended to ensure that they also apply to parents who have lost a child through miscarriage and that parental bereavement leave is now a day-1 employment right. The North is the first region in these islands to legislate for parental bereavement leave and pay in the case of miscarriage, which makes us not just a leader locally but one of the leaders across Europe. The way in which we are supporting families when they most need it is something that we can be proud of. I commend the regulations to the House.
Dr Archibald: I thank all the Members who spoke in support of the regulations. I reiterate my thanks to the Committee for the Economy for its scrutiny of the legislation. I am happy to commend the regulations to the Assembly.
Question put and agreed to.
That the Statutory Parental Bereavement Pay (General) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2026 be approved.
That the Statutory Parental Bereavement Pay (Employment and Earnings) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2026 be approved.
Dr Archibald: I seek the Assembly's approval for the Statutory Parental Bereavement Pay (Employment and Earnings) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2026. The statutory rule was made on 1 April and came into operation on 6 April. It is before the Assembly today under the confirmatory procedure.
Again, I am grateful to the Economy Committee and the Examiner of Statutory Rules for their scrutiny of the rule. It was made with the concurrence of HMRC and the Treasury, and I thank them for their assistance. The confirmatory procedure means that the regulations came into operation before the debate and have to be approved by the Assembly within the relevant statutory period. In this case, the deadline for approval is 6 October 2026.
Before 6 April, only parental bereavement leave was a day-1 right. Now, eligible parents who have commenced employment at the time of their miscarriage, stillbirth or the death of a child can also claim statutory parental bereavement pay from day 1. That is a significant improvement in support for bereaved parents and prospective parents. By working together, the Assembly has made the North one of the first places to offer a full two weeks of leave and set a minimum level of pay for that wider group of bereaved parents. The package supports employees, provides enhanced rights and contributes to the wider goal of encouraging good jobs.
It is important that the framework is clear and workable for employers, including small and medium-sized businesses. The 2026 regulatory impact assessment estimates one-off employer familiarisation costs of up to £1·36 million, with wider HMRC implementation costs forecast at £1·5 million and annual systems maintenance costs of around £10,000. It may assist Members to note that early implementation has gone smoothly. In the first two months since the changes came into force, approximately 70 claims have been received. HMRC has advised at this early stage that no issues have been identified in the operation of the scheme. Given that the policy was introduced only recently, HMRC has indicated that it does not expect to provide substantive evaluation data until later in the year. In addition, no adverse feedback has been reported by nibusinessinfo, suggesting that the guidance provided to employers has been clear and accessible. Taken together, that points to a scheme that is operating effectively in its early stages, while, of course, remaining under review as further evidence becomes available.
I therefore commend to the Assembly the Statutory Parental Bereavement Pay (Employment and Earnings) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2026. The regulations amend the employment and earnings provisions that apply to statutory parental bereavement pay. They form part of the wider 2026 parental bereavement reforms and support the updated statutory parental bereavement pay arrangements. The purpose of the regulations is to ensure that employment and earnings rules within the statutory parental bereavement pay framework are aligned with the strengthened 2026 arrangements, including the move to a day-1 right for statutory parental bereavement pay. The regulations are subject, as I said, to confirmatory procedure and require Assembly approval within the relevant statutory period. With statutory rule No. 58, they help to ensure that the statutory parental bereavement pay framework remains workable, effective and capable of supporting bereaved working parents in the way intended in the wider 2026 reforms.
I am happy to commend the regulations to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
That the Statutory Parental Bereavement Pay (Employment and Earnings) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2026 be approved.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Dr Aiken] in the Chair)
Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I hate to be the Chair of the Finance Committee, but, by my count, we are not quite quorate. I do not know whether that calls into question legally anything that we do now.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I think that I count 10 Members present, which means that we are quorate. Oh, do we have only nine? Can I not count? Sorry. That is not like me. Yes, we are not quorate.
We are now. Yay. Well spotted, Matthew. Excellent. We are now quorate, so let us get on with it.
That the draft Mandatory Use of Closed Circuit Television in Slaughterhouses Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2026 be approved.
Mr Muir: I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this motion, which seeks the Assembly's approval to introduce the draft Mandatory Use of Closed Circuit Television in Slaughterhouses Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2026.
In 2015, the then Farm Animal Welfare Committee, now the Animal Welfare Committee, which is an expert group that advises all Governments in the UK, including that of Northern Ireland, on matters relating to the slaughter of animals, recommended that the use of CCTV be made mandatory in all abattoirs. Its overriding view was that mandatory CCTV would strengthen the operation and application of existing welfare protections for animals when they reach the point of slaughter. Northern Ireland is the last jurisdiction to implement the recommendations from that report. I am therefore pleased to bring the regulations to the House today. They will not only maintain legislative parity with the rest of the UK but protect animals at the point of slaughter, as well as businesses and their employees.
I will get into the detail of the regulations later. I consider the act of making them to be very important, however. It is vital that we be seen to have animal welfare laws that keep pace with, rather than lag behind, those in other jurisdictions across these islands. That sends out a message that we are a progressive society that takes the right steps to implement the best possible expert advice. In that regard, the regulations represent a proportionate and necessary step forward.
I have consistently made it clear that animal welfare is one of my top priorities. Enacting the legislation is the first step towards delivering the commitments set out in the animal welfare pathway. The regulations constitute practical, evidence-based reform that will help raise standards in a real and measurable way. They are not about having more bureaucracy or putting down a needless requirement on paper but about improving oversight, increasing consistency and strengthening confidence that proper standards are being upheld at the point at which animals are at their most vulnerable. The regulations will enhance our existing animal welfare law and support effective enforcement.
What that in mind, I will inform the House of what the regulations will do. They will require all slaughterhouses in Northern Ireland to install and operate CCTV in all areas in which live animals are present, including unloading, lairage, handling, stunning and killing areas. Operators will have to retain footage for a minimum of 90 days and make it available, where necessary, to official veterinarians and authorised inspectors for enforcement purposes. Taken together, those requirements will create a clear and consistent framework across the sector. That matters because protecting animal welfare at the time of slaughter is a statutory obligation and a fundamental responsibility. Although the majority of slaughterhouses in Northern Ireland already operate CCTV systems, there is currently no legal requirement governing camera coverage, recording quality, retention periods or access arrangements. The regulations will directly address that gap in a way that is clear, proportionate and enforceable.
It is important to recognise the broader context. England introduced mandatory CCTV in slaughterhouses in 2018; Scotland followed in 2022; and Wales introduced similar legislation in 2024. Northern Ireland should not be the only UK jurisdiction without equivalent legislation. By bringing the regulations forward now, we will make sure that our framework reflects both public expectation and the standards that are in place elsewhere. Indeed, I was able to lean on the experience and findings of other UK jurisdictions to weigh up whether the legislation would deliver benefits for Northern Ireland. A review carried out by DEFRA found that stakeholders said that having CCTV promotes consistency across slaughterhouses by helping to maintain high standards. That review also showed that, in the five-year period following the introduction of the legislation, the rate of major and critical animal welfare non-compliance fell by 30%. Furthermore, requiring CCTV in all areas where live animals are present has improved oversight of processes in locations that are inaccessible or that are unsafe for direct observation.
CCTV has also been used as a training and identification tool, helping officials to address issues and identify training before enforcement action is necessary. As well as identifying poor welfare practices, CCTV has enabled examples of best practice and strong technical competence to be used in operator training. Stakeholders also noted that CCTV can help operators to respond to unfounded allegations made by external parties.
The case for action is reinforced by the responses to the public consultation. Support for mandatory CCTV in slaughterhouses is strong and clear from the consultation responses. Over 90% of respondents support the proposal, regardless of slaughterhouse size. In response to the consultation, 91% of respondents agreed with the proposal that CCTV coverage should be retained for 90 days to allow sufficient time for review and enforcement, if necessary. The consultation also showed that 77% of respondents consider the associated costs to be reasonable and proportionate. That is a significant finding. It demonstrates not only broad backing for the principle of the regulations but confidence that the approach that we are taking is balanced, workable and justified.
Let me be clear: the regulations have been designed with proportionality in mind, and the Department has carefully considered the practical implications for industry. There will be a six-month implementation period before the enforcement provisions take effect, allowing operators sufficient time to make any necessary adjustments and thus ensuring orderly transition to compliance. The regulations will create specific offences, including failure to install CCTV equipment; obstructing access to CCTV recordings; and failure to provide documents or images that are required to be retained for up to 90 days. An individual who is found guilty of an offence will be subject, upon summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, which is currently £5,000. The Department will work closely with operators to support compliance. Clear guidance will be issued to assist with implementation. I assure Members that the regulations include appropriate safeguards in respect of privacy and data protection. CCTV will apply only within operational areas, and operators will remain responsible for meeting their obligations under UK GDPR requirements.
In short, the regulations are sensible, balanced, targeted and overdue. They will improve oversight, strengthen enforcement and enhance animal welfare protections at a critical point in the production process. They will also provide greater assurance to the public that proper standards are being maintained and upheld. For those reasons, I commend the draft Mandatory Use of Closed Circuit Television in Slaughterhouses Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2026 to the Assembly and ask Members to support their approval as a necessary and proportionate step to strengthen animal welfare oversight in Northern Ireland.
Mr Butler (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): The Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs first considered the draft SR at its meeting on 19 February 2026. We considered the SL1 and agreed to issue the call for views, to which zero responses were received. On 19 March, the Committee held an oral evidence session with DAERA officials, who outlined the purpose of the statutory rule (SR): to mandate the use of closed circuit television in slaughterhouses that handle live animals. We heard that the regulations will be made under section 11 of the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, using the draft affirmative resolution procedure.
By way of background, the Committee heard that, in 2015, the UK Animal Welfare Committee recommended the introduction of mandatory CCTV across all slaughterhouses to strengthen oversight and to improve animal welfare. This measure is to address a regulatory gap, as Northern Ireland remains the only UK jurisdiction without such requirements. The Committee was informed that, of the 20 licensed slaughterhouses here in Northern Ireland, 15 already have full CCTV coverage, driven primarily, I suppose, by commercial requirements for GB retailers and assurance schemes such as Red Tractor, but that five have only partial or no coverage at all. The Committee then heard that the regulations would require CCTV in all areas where live animals are present, including unloading, handling, stunning and killing. Footage must be of evidential quality, retained for 90 days and made available to authorised officers. Enforcement provisions and penalties will align with those in Great Britain, with a six-month implementation period to support compliance.
Members also noted that the public consultation showed that 91% of respondents were in favour of mandatory CCTV, albeit with some concerns about costs and data protection. During the Committee's scrutiny with officials, members queried the evidence that CCTV delivers measurable improvements in animal welfare and accountability. Officials advised that the experience in England demonstrates clear benefits of CCTV, including its use in staff training, identification of welfare breaches, support for enforcement action, assistance to verify or refute allegations and provision of assurance to the public regarding welfare standards. The Committee noted that, while the EU does not mandate CCTV in slaughterhouses, evidence from GB indicates that it is an effective and proportionate safeguard.
Overall, the Committee was satisfied that the regulations will strengthen enforcement, improve consistency across premises and enhance public confidence in animal welfare standards. The Committee agreed on 19 March that it was content to support the SR as drafted.
On 29 May, the Department had to withdraw the draft SR after the Examiner of Statutory Rules identified typographical errors in it. A revised draft SR was laid in the Business Office on 3 June, and, at its meeting on 11 June, the Committee agreed to support it.
The Committee agrees to recommend that the Mandatory Use of Closed Circuit Television in Slaughterhouses Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2026 be approved by the Assembly.
Mr McAleer: The regulations are designed to strengthen and complement the existing framework governing the welfare of animals at the time of killing. They build upon EU regulation 1099/2009 and the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing Regulations 2014, ensuring that the North maintains high standards of animal welfare.
The key provision is the requirement for slaughterhouse operators to install and operate CCTV systems in all areas where live animals are present. That measure is intended to promote transparency, support compliance and provide reassurance that welfare standards are being upheld consistently. In addition, operators must retain footage for a period of 90 days, ensuring that records are available for inspection if required. Inspectors are granted clear powers to enforce the regulations, including the ability to enter premises, carry out inspections and, where necessary, seize evidence to ensure compliance. Enforcement notices may also be issued where breaches are identified, with appropriate mechanisms in place for appeal.
In summary, the measures provide a robust and proportionate approach to improving animal welfare oversight in slaughterhouses, enhancing accountability and reinforcing public confidence in the system. We support the regulations.
Mr Wilson: At its core, this is a practical and proportionate step to strengthen animal welfare, improve public confidence and bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom. For some time now, there has been a gap in our regulatory framework. While England introduced similar measures in 2018, with Scotland and Wales following in 2021 and 2024 respectively, Northern Ireland has remained the only UK jurisdiction without mandatory CCTV requirements in slaughterhouses. The regulations address that gap in a sensible and balanced way. They require slaughterhouse operators to install CCTV systems in all areas where live animals are present, ensuring a clear and complete record of operations. They also require footage to be retained for a minimum of 90 days and made available to authorised officers for inspection where necessary. In so doing, the regulations are not about creating an additional burden for the sake of it. Rather, they are about strengthening transparency, improving standards and giving regulators the tools that they need to enforce the high levels of animal welfare that the public rightly expect. We are, rightly, proud of the high quality of food that we produce in Northern Ireland, and it is right and proper that we aspire to our food being produced to a high ethical standard.
It is worth noting that most of the industry is ahead of the legislation. The majority of slaughterhouses here already operate some form of CCTV system, often driven by retailer requirements and assurance schemes. This legislation creates consistency, putting all operators on the same footing and ensuring that there are clear, enforceable standards across the board. There is public and stakeholder backing for this approach. The Department's consultation showed support for mandatory CCTV, including support for full coverage and the 90-day retention period. That reflects a wider expectation that high animal welfare standards must be demonstrated, not simply assumed.
This is a measured and common-sense step forward. It supports animal welfare, enhances transparency, aligns us with the rest of the UK and ensures a consistent regulatory approach across the sector. I am happy to support the motion.
Mr Blair: I, like others, rise as a member of the AERA Committee in support of the regulations, which seek to make CCTV mandatory in our slaughterhouses. I do not intend to repeat all of the relevant points that have been covered by the Committee Chair and Committee colleagues.
The regulations are a pillar in Minister Muir's wider animal welfare pathway. The Minister has made it clear that that pathway is about making our current animal welfare legislation more robust by raising standards, building public confidence and supporting a more humane agri-food sector. That is central to public trust and market access. Mandatory CCTV in slaughterhouses provides monitoring of what happens in those parts of the process that the public do not see but, nevertheless, care about. It supports the Department's role in enforcement by ensuring that animal welfare standards are being upheld. At their core, the regulations are based on prevention, accountability and transparency.
Ultimately, the regulations will enable our agri-food sector to demonstrate high standards of animal welfare from farm to fork, which is increasingly important to consumers, retailers and export markets. Mandatory CCTV gives additional confidence that Northern Ireland is continuing to move in the same direction as other countries across the globe.
I commend the Minister — my colleague — for bringing forward the regulations as part of his wider animal welfare pathway. They will continue to ensure that Northern Ireland is firmly on the side of high welfare standards. I am pleased to support the regulations, and I urge colleagues to do so too.
Mr Muir: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Members who contributed to the debate. It might have been a short debate, but it is on an important issue. The regulations represent my Department's ongoing commitment to driving forward the highest possible standards of animal welfare. This is one of the key areas in the animal welfare pathway that the Department is pursuing. The proposed regulations will strengthen confidence that proper standards are being upheld at the point at which animals are at their most vulnerable. The regulations have broad support, as indicated by the response to the consultation and the response of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. I thank the Committee for the work that it has done on the regulations through its scrutiny. The regulations have been agreed by the Executive. I am therefore pleased to commend the motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
That the draft Mandatory Use of Closed Circuit Television in Slaughterhouses Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2026 be approved.
The Standing Orders are amended as follows—
(1) That Standing Order 70 be repealed;
(2) In Standing Order 22, for paragraph 2, substitute—
"Every petition presented under this order, not containing matter which would create a substantial risk that the course of justice in legal proceedings (which are active within the meaning of section 2 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981), would be seriously impeded or prejudiced, shall be notified to the Clerk of the Business Committee, and that committee shall consider whether and when it shall be taken in the Assembly.";
(3) In Standing Order 57—
(a) in the heading, omit "and Privileges";
(b) in paragraph 1, omit "and Privileges";
(c) for sub-paragraph 1(a) substitute—
"(a) to consider any complaint of unauthorised disclosure of information by a member referred to it by the Assembly or a committee;";
(4) In Standing Order 69A—
(a) in paragraph (3) omit "and Privileges";
(b) in paragraph (4) omit "and Privileges";
(c) for sub-paragraph 5(a), substitute—
"(a) made by the Committee on Standards, that relates to the conduct of members;";
(5) In Standing Order 69B, in paragraph 1, omit "and Privileges"; and
(6) In Standing Order 69C, in paragraph 2, omit "and Privileges".
Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. The Chairperson of the Committee on Standards and Privileges will have 10 minutes after the proposer of the motion, and all other Members who wish to speak will have three minutes. Over to you, Kellie.
Ms K Armstrong: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to bring to the Assembly, at the request of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, a motion to repeal Standing Order 70, rename the Committee on Standards and Privileges and make the necessary consequential amendments to Standing Orders.
Standing Order 70 deals with how matters of privilege can be raised by Members and dealt with by the Speaker. The need to review Standing Order 70 was initially identified following a review of the code of conduct by a previous Committee on Standards and Privileges, and the current Committee has completed that work. Following detailed consideration of a range of policy options, that Committee decided that the most appropriate course of action was to repeal Standing Order 70. I am not going to say more about the background to the rationale for that decision as I know that Cathy Mason MLA, Chairperson of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, intends to cover that in detail in her contribution.
A joint letter from both Committees was provided to MLAs in advance of the debate — I believe that it went out on 24 June — setting out information on the position regarding parliamentary privilege in the Northern Ireland Assembly. The decision reached by the Committee on Standards and Privileges is to recommend the repeal of Standing Order 70 and the making of necessary consequential amendments to Standing Orders.
Upon receipt of the request from the Committee on Standards and Privileges, and having considered the information provided on the comprehensive policy review, the Committee on Procedures agreed to seek legal advice on the procedural aspects of making the proposed changes to Standing Orders. Following receipt of that advice, and whilst consulting with the Speaker and the Business Committee on one of the consequential amendments, the Committee agreed to bring forward the motion that is before the Assembly, seeking agreement to make the changes.
With the repeal of Standing Order 70, a number of consequential amendments need to be made to Standing Orders, and I will now run through them. Standing Order 22 covers public petitions, and the amendment to paragraph (2) of that Standing Order removes the reference to considering matters:
"in breach of the privileges of the Assembly"
and replaces it with a reference to matters that could create a substantial risk of serious prejudice to active legal proceedings.
When considering that consequential amendment, the Committee on Procedures discussed the policy intent and sought the views of the Speaker and the Business Committee. Noting that the amendment maintains consistency between Standing Order 22(2) and Standing Order 73, which covers sub judice and means that the Business Committee would consider the scheduling of a petition with the benefit of the knowledge that the Speaker had exercised his discretion pursuant to Standing Order 73 to permit the petition, the Committee agreed that it was content with that approach.
The amendments to Standing Order 57 remove the reference to "and Privileges" in the Committee name in the heading and in paragraph (1), and replaces paragraph (1)(a), which references matters of privilege, with:
"to consider any complaint of unauthorised disclosure of information by a member referred to it by the Assembly or a committee".
That amendment provides for the investigating of unauthorised disclosure of information — in other words, leaks — as an alleged breach of the code rather than as an alleged breach of privilege, and implements the preferred approach for dealing with those matters as set out in the Committee on Standards and Privileges report of the review of the code of conduct undertaken in the 2011-16 mandate.
The amendments to Standing Orders 69A(3), 69A(4), 69B(1) and 69C(2) remove the words "and Privileges" from the name of the Committee on Standards and Privileges. That Committee, if the motion is passed, will be called the Committee on Standards, which is a more appropriate title following the repeal of Standing Order 70.
The amendment to Standing Order 69A(5) replaces paragraph (a), which makes reference to "and Privileges", with:
"made by the Committee on Standards, that relates to the conduct of members".
Standing Order 69A covers the Northern Ireland Assembly Commissioner for Standards, and paragraph (5)(a) sets out what the Commissioner must investigate on referral by the Committee on Standards and Privileges. The amendment removes references to "Privileges" but continues to provide for investigation by the Commissioner referrals by the Committee that relate to the conduct of Members.
The proposed changes to Standing Orders, requested by the Committee on Standards and Privileges — soon to be renamed the Committee on Standards, if the motion is passed — address outstanding issues from the review of the code of conduct and the anomaly that is Standing Order 70. The Committee on Procedures is, therefore, pleased to bring them to the Assembly for approval.
In my capacity as Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures, I place on record my thanks to the members of the Committee on Procedures and the Committee on Standards and Privileges, the Committee Clerks and everyone else who helps us with those Committees for the work that they undertook to enable the proposed changes to Standing Orders to be brought to the Assembly. I look forward to the contributions of Members.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Cathy Mason as Chair of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, soon to be just the Committee on Standards. You have up to 10 minutes.
[Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.]
As Chairperson of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion from the Committee on Procedures. I thank the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Committee for tabling the motion and the clerking teams of both Committees.
Standing Order 70 deals with how matters of privilege can be raised by Members and dealt with by the Speaker. It provides a process by which, among other things, an MLA may bring to the attention of the Speaker a specific matter affecting the privilege of the Assembly for the purpose of having the matter referred to the Committee on Standards and Privileges. Standing Order 70 is based on the parliamentary concepts of privilege, being the rights and protections that enable the Assembly and its Members to carry out their work effectively, and contempt, being the actions that obstruct or impede the Assembly, its Committees or its Members in performing their duties.
A problem arises, however, in that Standing Order 70 replicates, perhaps inadvertently, Standing Order 46 of the Assembly created by the NI Constitution Act 1973. The privileges of the 1973 Assembly were different from those of this Assembly and were more akin to those of the House of Commons. By contrast, the legal protections and immunities of this Assembly relate to freedom of speech and apply to the law of defamation. Therefore, Standing Order 70 rests on concepts that were never fully incorporated into this devolved institution, which makes that Standing Order an anomaly.
The need for a review of Standing Order 70 was initially identified during the 2011-16 mandate following a review of the code of conduct by the then Committee on Standards and Privileges. As a result of the review, rules 12 and 13 were included in the code of conduct. Rule 12 prohibits the unauthorised disclosure of confidential information, and rule 13 requires Members not to interfere improperly with the functioning of the Assembly, including its debates, procedures and decision-making, or other people's duties in that regard. The introduction of rule 13 meant that a range of issues that might previously have been described as matters of privilege, including conduct that improperly interferes with the performance by the Assembly of its functions, are now considered to be standards issues and that complaints against MLAs in relation to such matters are considered by the Commissioner for Standards as alleged breaches of the code.
Following the introduction of rules 12 and 13 in the code in 2015, the then Committee highlighted the need for Standing Order 70 to be reviewed and noted its preference for investigating unauthorised disclosure of information as an alleged breach of the code rather than as an alleged breach of privilege. Furthermore, the call for a review of Standing Order 70 was made in the knowledge that, where concerns arise from a Member's conduct, there is a clear standards framework that includes the role of the Commissioner for Standards as the independent investigator, the role of the Committee as a body of peers in considering the investigation findings and adjudicating and the sanctioning role of the Assembly in plenary where applicable.
The current Committee finally undertook the review of Standing Order 70 as a legacy issue identified by predecessor Committees. As mentioned, it was considered that, in light of the introduction of rules 12 and 13 of the code, Standing Order 70 may be redundant and that it may be appropriate to remove the reference to "Privileges" from the name of the Committee. In September 2024, the Committee agreed to undertake the review and, as part of that process, obtained legal advice on a range of policy and procedural issues.
Issues that the Committee considered included whether the introduction of rules 12 and 13 of the code negated the basis for Standing Order 70, meaning that it should be removed, or whether Standing Order 70 should be amended to reflect the introduction of rules 12 and 13 and the limitation of the Assembly's privilege as provided for under the 1998 Act; consequential changes needed to Standing Orders if Standing Order 70 were to be repealed; whether any changes would be required to the code to ensure that all matters that could conceivably be considered as matters of privilege are covered by the code; and whether it would be appropriate to retitle the Committee on Standards and Privileges to remove the reference to "Privileges" should Standing Order 70 be removed.
Following its consideration of initial legal advice, the Committee agreed in principle and subject to receiving further legal advice to seek to repeal Standing Order 70 and amend the title of the Committee to remove the reference to "Privileges". To inform a final policy decision on the matter, the Committee agreed to request that Legal Services provide advice, including illustrative examples of how Standing Orders would be required to be amended to implement the Committee's policy decision.
Finally, on 11 March 2025, the Committee wrote to the Committee on Procedures to ask it to undertake the work necessary to bring forward for the Assembly's approval the proposed repeal of Standing Order 70 and consequential amendments to Standing Orders, which brings us to today's motion.
Approving the motion to repeal Standing Order 70 will essentially address an anomaly in our procedures and remove a provision that suggested powers that, in practice, the Assembly could not properly exercise. In doing so, the repeal will reduce any ambiguity over what constitutes parliamentary privilege and what should properly be considered misconduct.
Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the Chairperson's giving way. I am relatively new to this, but I was briefly a member of the Committee on Procedures. I have a bit of an interest in a couple of matters, so I want to get clarity, for the record, on what is meant by the motion.
By repealing Standing Order 70, we are not in any way affecting our privilege to speak. It is worth reminding Members that we do not have indemnification, unlike MPs, when we speak outside the Chamber. Our privilege is caveated and is not as absolute as that for MPs, and we do not have indemnification when we speak outside the Chamber. We also have a very aggressive defamation regime. Members should be aware of that when discussing the motion. For clarity, however, the repeal does not affect our privileges, constricted and mitigated as they are. That is the first question.
The second one is about rules 12 and 13. I think that I can talk about this now. I was investigated for alleged breaches — they were found to be true, but I think that they were slightly absurd — by disclosing the fact that I had submitted a complaint about someone else over standards. Will repealing Standing Order 70 change how the Committee on Standards and Privileges approaches those rules or other rules on such things? It would be helpful to get clarity from the Chairperson on those two points.
Mrs Mason: I thank the Member for his questions. It is good to have clarity on them. The change is not about reducing any protections, weakening democracy or limiting free speech; rather, the repeal is about modernising our procedures so that they reflect the current standards regime and the system of accountability, which includes the contemporary code of conduct, the investigation role of the independent Assembly Commissioner for Standards, the adjudication role of the Committee and the sanctioning role of the Assembly. There will be no change in the Committee's approach to the rules. That approach is still covered under the standards.
I will resume. The repeal will reduce any ambiguity about what constitutes parliamentary privilege and what should properly be considered misconduct. It will therefore support a clearer, more consistent framework for dealing with conduct and standards issues. On behalf of the Committee, I therefore support the motion.
[Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.]
My comments will be brief. As Deputy Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures, I welcome the opportunity to conclude today's debate on the motion to repeal Standing Order 70 and make a number of consequential amendments. I thank the Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures, Kellie Armstrong, for opening the debate and setting out for the House the consequential amendments that need to be made as a result of the repeal of Standing Order 70. I also thank the Chairperson of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, Cathy Mason, for clearly explaining the issues with Standing Order 70 and setting out the policy work that that Committee undertook and the rationale for concluding that the most appropriate option was to remove Standing Order 70.
Parliamentary privilege is a complicated issue, but it is a very important one for all Members to understand. It was helpful to get Matthew's intervention on the fact that the repeal changes nothing for Members. It simply takes away the reference to privilege which never fully existed. I thank Matthew for his intervention.
Cathy and our Chairperson have summed up the detail. It is clear that, at the moment, Standing Order 70 is an anomaly, and a compelling case has been made for its repeal. As the Chairperson of the Committee on Standards and Privileges indicated, the change will address any ambiguity over what constitutes parliamentary privilege and what should be considered misconduct. The other amendments to the Standing Orders before the House today are required as a consequence of removing Standing Order 70.
I thank the Chairperson and members of the Committee on Standards and Privileges for undertaking a comprehensive review of Standing Order 70 and for bringing the outcomes of that work to the Committee on Procedures, with the recommendation to make the changes to Standing Orders.
I also thank the Chairperson and members of the Committee on Procedures, on which I sit, for the constructive approach to considering not just these changes to Standing Orders but all the other work that we are undertaking. Go raibh maith agat.
[Translation: Thank you.]
I ask the Assembly to support the motion.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed. Before we proceed to the Question, I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved (with cross-community support):
The Standing Orders are amended as follows—
(1) That Standing Order 70 be repealed;
(2) In Standing Order 22, for paragraph 2, substitute—
"Every petition presented under this order, not containing matter which would create a substantial risk that the course of justice in legal proceedings (which are active within the meaning of section 2 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981), would be seriously impeded or prejudiced, shall be notified to the Clerk of the Business Committee, and that committee shall consider whether and when it shall be taken in the Assembly.";
(3) In Standing Order 57—
(a) in the heading, omit "and Privileges";
(b) in paragraph 1, omit "and Privileges";
(c) for sub-paragraph 1(a) substitute—
"(a) to consider any complaint of unauthorised disclosure of information by a member referred to it by the Assembly or a committee;";
(4) In Standing Order 69A—
(a) in paragraph (3) omit "and Privileges";
(b) in paragraph (4) omit "and Privileges";
(c) for sub-paragraph 5(a), substitute—
"(a) made by the Committee on Standards, that relates to the conduct of members;";
(5) In Standing Order 69B, in paragraph 1, omit "and Privileges"; and
(6) In Standing Order 69C, in paragraph 2, omit "and Privileges".
After Standing Order 43 insert:
43A. Scrutiny of Delegated Powers in Bills
(1) In carrying out its functions under Standing Order 33(2), the appropriate committee may, among other things, consider and report on the following—
(a) whether the provisions of the Bill inappropriately delegate legislative power, and
(b) whether the exercise of legislative power provided for in the Bill is subject to an inappropriate degree of scrutiny by the Assembly.
(2) The appropriate committee may delegate to the Examiner of Statutory Rules the functions set out in this Standing Order.
(3) In this Standing Order, the "appropriate committee" is the committee to which the Bill is referred under Standing Order 33.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose the motion and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who speak will have five minutes. Kellie, I call on you to open the debate on the motion.
Ms K Armstrong: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not think that we will take a full hour. I am sure that everybody will be glad to hear that.
I rise to inform you of the work of the Committee on Procedures regarding the scrutiny of delegated powers in Bills and our consideration of whether Standing Orders should formally recognise the role that is carried out by the Assembly's Examiner of Statutory Rules (ESR).
The Committee has carefully examined how delegated powers are scrutinised and how that process might be strengthened. Currently, Statutory Committees scrutinise delegated powers in Bills with technical support from the Examiner of Statutory Rules. Guidance from the Northern Ireland Civil Service legislative programme secretariat in the Executive Office recommends that a Department should provide a delegated powers memorandum (DPM) for all Bills except those that are proceeding by accelerated passage. The guidance also states that the DPM should be provided to the relevant Committee as soon as possible after a Bill is introduced and no later than completion of the Bill's Second Stage.
Assembly Committees routinely publish a DPM as part of the Committee report on a Bill. That procedure is not formally set out in Standing Orders but has operated by convention since 2007. A DPM is not routinely provided for non-Executive Bills. The benefits of scrutiny of the DPM by Statutory Committees include facilitating detailed analysis of what the delegated power does and whether it is appropriate for the power to be left to delegated or subordinate legislation rather than be included in the Bill itself. The scrutiny also considers whether the choice of Assembly control that is provided for each power — confirmatory, affirmative, negative or none — is the most appropriate. The Committee considered that issue following a recommendation in the Chairpersons' Liaison Group's 2020 'Report on Strengthening Committee Scrutiny'. That report recommended that the Committee on Procedures examine whether Standing Orders should include the role of the Examiner of Statutory Rules in scrutinising delegated powers in Bills, including those that are taken by accelerated passage, and whether advice from the Examiner of Statutory Rules to Committees should be published.
The Committee undertook its investigations by being briefed by the Examiner, Ms Angela Kelly, noting that, while current arrangements for her role are working well, they do not allow for publication of her reports. That creates a potential lack of transparency for Departments, stakeholders and the public regarding a decision by a Committee on delegated powers in a Bill. The Committee therefore agreed to formalise in Standing Orders the role of the Examiner of Statutory Rules, including the publication of her reports. It also agreed that the provision would not apply to Bills that proceed by accelerated passage because the role of the ESR is linked to that of the relevant Committee and such Bills are not referred to a Committee. The Committee on Procedures recommends, however, that the issue be considered by our successor Committee in the new mandate.
As previously mentioned, Civil Service guidance is that Departments provide a DPM to a Statutory Committee. We explored whether to formalise that provision and to extend the draft Standing Order, making it mandatory that a DPM be provided with every Bill that is introduced. We asked the Bill Office for an opinion and were informed that, with a few exceptions, that convention is working well and Committees report few issues or problems. We sought the views of the Executive Office on that possible provision but received no reply. We also asked the Bill Office whether a DPM should be provided with non-Executive Bills, such as Members' Bills or Committee Bills. The Bill Office informed us that it would be good practice to do so and that, although most Members' Bills had few, if any, delegated powers, in future, non-Executive Bill sponsors would be asked to provide a DPM. For most Members' Bills and Committee Bills, that could be facilitated through the contract that the Bill Office has in place for drafting Bills. The Bill Office also indicated that, for those Members' Bills that are currently progressing to Committee Stage, the ESR has indicated that it would be possible to undertake the scrutiny without the provision of a DPM.
Content that we had explored the option, the Committee decided not to consider the mandatory provision of DPMs any further. It was content that the draft Standing Order would focus on codifying the current role of the Examiner of Statutory Rules. Having settled our policy position, we issued instructions for the drafting of a new Standing Order, and, after a few revisions, the Committee agreed the motion before you today at its meeting on 10 June 2026. The new Standing Order is Standing Order 43A. On behalf of the Committee, a letter was sent to all MLAs informing them of the considerations undertaken by the Committee on Procedures, and I trust that Members found that useful and that it will assist them if they want to contribute to the debate today. I commend the new Standing Order to the Assembly.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): As no other Member has indicated that they wish to speak, there is no need to make a winding-up speech. Before we proceed to the Question, I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved (with cross-community support):
After Standing Order 43 insert:
43A. Scrutiny of Delegated Powers in Bills
(1) In carrying out its functions under Standing Order 33(2), the appropriate committee may, among other things, consider and report on the following—
(a) whether the provisions of the Bill inappropriately delegate legislative power, and
(b) whether the exercise of legislative power provided for in the Bill is subject to an inappropriate degree of scrutiny by the Assembly.
(2) The appropriate committee may delegate to the Examiner of Statutory Rules the functions set out in this Standing Order.
(3) In this Standing Order, the "appropriate committee" is the committee to which the Bill is referred under Standing Order 33.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): As there are Ayes from all sides of the Chamber and no dissenting voices, I am satisfied that cross-community support has been demonstrated.
Mr McReynolds: I beg to introduce the Tree Protection Bill [NIA 41/22-27], which is a Bill to amend the law relating to the protection of trees and woodlands.
Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.