Official Report: Monday 14 September 2026

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Emma Little-Pengelly has requested to make a statement on the summit on the break-up of the United Kingdom that fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. If other Members wish to be called, they should do so by continually rising in their place. All Members who are called will have up to three minutes in which to speak on the subject. I remind Members that interventions are not permitted and that I will take no points of order on this or any other matter until the item of business has finished.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: We face many challenges across Northern Ireland, not least in relation to our education sector, driving down health waiting lists, growing our economy and supporting a better, brighter future for every person in Northern Ireland, yet, today, the nationalist leaders of the SNP, Plaid Cymru and Sinn Féin are meeting in Cardiff not to talk about those important issues but to push for the break-up of the United Kingdom.

Over the weekend, those attending briefed that it was a meeting of the First Ministers. That caused significant concern, not least when it was said that they would be signing up to a charter to chart a pathway to the destruction of the United Kingdom — a wreckers' charter. It is therefore incredibly important that we clarify in absolute terms that it is not a meeting of the First Ministers. Michelle O'Neill is not attending as First Minister. She had and has no authority to sign anything at the summit on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland. Michelle O'Neill has not sought or obtained any agreement to attend as First Minister.

When called out on what they were attempting to spin, the parties clarified that it is indeed a meeting of the parties and not of the First Ministers. I give a commitment to the people of Northern Ireland that, in my role as deputy First Minister — a joint role, jointly leading the Executive and equal in every way in legislation and in what we do — I will never allow the role of First Minister to be used, misused or weaponised in a way that pushes for the abolition of Northern Ireland and the destruction of the United Kingdom.

We are much stronger together when it comes to our economy, defence and future.

Let us be very clear about what this is: it is a summit of separatists, arguing from a minority position and pushing forward a wreckers' charter, focusing on constitutional issues and the destruction of the Union, at a time when the people whom we serve want us to work together to deliver change in health, in education, to our roads and to our infrastructure — working to actually deliver for people. I am here, determined to deliver for everyone across Northern Ireland, when others are away pursuing narrow political agendas.

Mr Sheehan: I suppose that, when the First Ministers of the North, Scotland and Wales organised that meeting, they did not anticipate the level of meltdown among unionists here, but there you go. I suppose that Donald Trump's utterances have added to that. I noticed that Jonathan Buckley got his photograph taken down at the golf. Golf is an enjoyable affair; you looked as though you were sucking a lemon, but anyway.

Today's meeting in Cardiff marks an important moment for the future of these islands. The election in May provided an opportunity. For the first time, there are three nationalist First Ministers. That is a clear and powerful indication that people demand a different political direction. That is because Westminster is failing the people of the North, Scotland and Wales. The leaders who are meeting today are calling on the British Government to prepare, plan for and facilitate constitutional change in Wales, Scotland and the North of Ireland. Our parties have much to gain from working together where we share common interests and where cooperation can deliver real improvements for the workers, families and communities that we represent. We will work together on energy, the economy and our relationships with Europe, building stronger and fairer societies.

The future of Scotland is a matter for the people of Scotland. The future of Wales is a matter for the people of Wales. The future of Ireland must be decided by the people of Ireland. For Ireland, that principle is not simply an aspiration; it is a democratic right that is embedded in the Good Friday Agreement. We have the means to decide our future. The responsibility now is to prepare seriously for that choice. Irish unity is no longer a distant aspiration; it is a serious contemporary political project. The debate is already under way. A referendum on Irish unity is not something to fear but something for which to prepare. Today's meeting is another important step towards that, breaking the political shackles of Westminster and building an Ireland that is founded on fairness, equality and opportunity for all.

Mr Tennyson: The debate tells us more about the priorities of some parties in the Chamber than it does about the priorities of the people whom we represent. The Executive face a huge in tray as we return from summer recess. Public services are limping on, five months into a financial year without a Budget. A raft of draft legislation still awaits scrutiny and debate. People across Northern Ireland are worried about hospital waiting lists, special educational needs provision and housing pressures. They are worried about paying their bills, caring for elderly relatives and getting their children the support that they need in school — all challenges that are being made worse by the absence of an agreed Budget — yet here we are.

We have seen this script before when it comes to Drumcree and manufactured culture wars. Now, we have the latest choreographed row between the First Minister and deputy First Minister. The Assembly has no shortage of genuine crises to address. What we do have, however, is a shortage of time — time that is, once again, being squandered by focusing on manufactured grievance rather than agreeing a Budget and getting on with the jobs that we are all elected to do.

It has to be said that there is also a certain irony in the contribution from the DUP, given that that party supported the changes in the St Andrews Agreement and the diluting of the joint nature of the roles of First Minister and deputy First Minister, and has refused, even in recent months, to support calls from Alliance, the SDLP and the Ulster Unionists to make the First Minister roles joint in nature and title. Having championed the changes, it now comes to the Chamber to bemoan, once again, the consequences of its own actions.

The public can see through it. If they were writing the script for this Assembly, it would be one whereby we agree to accept diversity and difference when it comes to the constitutional question and one in which we are laser-focused, not on point-scoring but on fixing our public services, reforming Stormont, balancing the books and delivering a better future for all the people whom we are elected to serve and represent. Frankly, the public do not see that, and they are scundered by what passes for politics in this Building.

Mr Burrows: The event in Cardiff is a charade and a circus. It is not three devolved nations gathering for a conference on the break-up of the United Kingdom; it is three nationalist politicians signing each other's manifestos. It counts for absolutely nothing. It is just the same as Donald Trump's loud voice. He has a loud voice but zero votes. Zero votes because the people of Northern Ireland are in charge of their constitutional future — not the leader of Plaid Cymru or the leader of the SNP or Donald Trump but the people of Northern Ireland. Of course, the Members across the Chamber used to call the principle of consent the "unionist veto" or "British veto" when they tried to bomb Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom and overturn that principle of consent. However, that is now enshrined in law.

It is a disappointment that Sinn Féin is the party of failed promises and failing Ministries. They promise that a united Ireland is just around the corner, and Michelle O'Neill said today that we are in the Union's "final days". In 2003, of course, Martin McGuinness said that there would be a border poll by 2016. In 2020, Mary Lou said that, by 2025, we would have a border poll. Some Members have said that it is just around the corner, over the next bend and within reach. "Touching distance" was one term that was used. Now, it is the "final days". Those are false promises, because here is the reality: the republican movement blew 2,000 people —. I see the newest Member of the Assembly grinning there. It was not funny that your colleagues in the IRA blew 2,000 people to smithereens and shot them in their homes, leaving bereaved mothers and families and orphaning children for a united Ireland that has not come. Now you are having to promise your base that it is just around the corner.

Do you know what the people of Northern Ireland want? They want to heal from that and move on, and now it is your Ministries that are destroying the place. There are potholes in the roads and a waste water system that you will not fix. He is still grinning. Families cannot build a home, and that puts rent and house prices up, but he thinks that it is funny. The Economy Minister actually wants to drive jobs away from Northern Ireland and cannot welcome the 3,000 jobs that the Bank of America is bringing. I am told that they say that the staff here are the best in the world.

Here is the reality: you can head to Cardiff and sign whatever you wish. It does not change an iota. You can say that Donald Trump is wrong about everything but, suddenly, is right about this. Northern Ireland is in the United Kingdom because the people of Northern Ireland want to keep it there. We are stronger together. We are protected by the fifth- or sixth-largest military in the world and part of the fourth- or fifth-largest economy in the world, and we have record levels of peace. Despite your best efforts, Northern Ireland is in the UK, and that is where we are staying. Get on and do your jobs.

Mr O'Toole: The first thing to say is that I am not sure whether the DUP has heard of a thing called the Streisand effect. If it has not, I encourage it to look at that. It is where you attempt to drive attention away from something but inadvertently create more attention on it. However, that may actually be the point of today's intervention from the deputy First Minister.

It is entirely fine and right for political parties to engage with one another. The First Minister is in a party that believes in Irish unity, as does my party. She is entitled to engage with other political parties on that basis, and it is true to say that there are now nationalist First Ministers in all devolved jurisdictions. There are different rules, and we are at different stages when it comes to independence or, in our case, unity. That is important.

I will say this in relation to some of what we have seen from the DUP today. The idea that political parties do not engage with one another outside and outwith their official capacities is, of course, totally negated by the decades of engagement between the DUP and the hard right of the Conservative Party, the UK Independence Party (UKIP), Reform, the Brexit campaign — How did that go? We all know. — and, most recently, a bromance with Donald Trump, which went very sour for the DUP this weekend.

In addition to their official roles, political parties will engage when they have shared interests, and that is pretty much to be expected.

The SDLP also believes in a new Ireland. This weekend, at our conference, we were engaged in exactly that conversation about how we want to build a better North — a better Northern Ireland — in the here and now through our work as an official Opposition, but also in our campaigning on a whole range of areas, and to bring people from non-traditional unity-supporting backgrounds into a conversation about a new Ireland in the future. It is a positive and inspiring vision that we are really proud about. Claire Hanna has led that as the leader of our party. Do you know what? I say to the DUP that some of the miserable way in which politics proceeds in this place, and the dysfunctional nature of Stormont, is exactly why more people from non-traditional nationalist backgrounds are engaging in the conversation about a new Ireland. If you want more people to become depressed and demoralised about the status quo, which is the thing that you are supposed to be protecting, crack on, guys; keep going, because, sadly, from your perspective, all you are doing is making more people engage on the idea of a new Ireland.

The Executive need to function in the here and now. The fact that this is the first thing that the deputy First Minister is prioritising today is not particularly encouraging, when the Executive are without a Budget and public services are in crisis. There is no contradiction between thinking that you need to do your job in the here and now — taking responsibility for governing the North — and pursuing your constitutional aspirations in future, as we are doing, because we want to build an inclusive new Ireland. The DUP, as it is with Drumcree, is engaging in distraction and deflection, not just because it knows that the Executive are not delivering —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Matthew.

Mr O'Toole: — but because it has nothing else to offer its electorate.

Ms Sheerin: I am delighted to get the opportunity this afternoon to speak about what has been a truly historic event. It is a summit of celebration, which we all have cause to celebrate. This is what happens when you elect a nationalist First Minister and when you have nationalist First Ministers from across the devolved regions working collaboratively and cooperating with each other on what is best for all our people. I am sad to see how it has been framed by some others. You want to call it a break-up, but I would call it a formation of new relationships, hopefully culminating in the restoration of the most natural relationship for anybody on the island of Ireland, which is the reunification of all our people, North and South.

On that, I remind the deputy First Minister and the DUP that no Irish republican or Irish nationalist needs permission from the DUP or anyone else to aspire to Irish unity. The days of 'Croppies lie down' are over. It is 2026, and we have the right to aspire to self-determination and Irish unification. That right is enshrined in law. We do not take direction from the harshest and most regressive elements of unionism. We do not react to dog whistles from bins. I say to the DUP that, if you want to advocate for the Union, you have the right to do so. Get involved in the conversation, make your arguments and advocate. Last week, you stood with us to argue with the British Government that they fund this place below need and that they serve our people here like they are second-class citizens. We get scraps from the table; we are an afterthought. You worked with us to deliver more for the people whom we all represent. If you want to advocate for the Union, you have the right to do so, but every backward step and every reaction to this from the sidelines show people that you want to take us backwards. People here do not want to go backwards; they want progress and prosperity, and they want to live a normal life. They do not want to be dragged back to the days of Drumcree and people being taken off the streets with batons. [Interruption.]

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order.

Ms Sheerin: We have the right to look towards the future and to look to progress and prosperity. That is a future that Irish reunification can offer us all. It is our right to make that case and to work with others to deliver it. I ask you to join us in that.

Mr Buckley: Let us serve a reality check. Michelle O'Neill is not meeting with Welsh and Scottish separatists today as the First Minister but as Mary Lou's deputy.

The intention is clear: it is a gathering of people plotting the destruction of the United Kingdom. It is a tale as old as time when it comes to Sinn Féin, given its increasing obsession with destruction.

Mr Sheehan referred to a few bitter lemons in my pocket. Mr Sheehan's problem was that he had too many bitter lemons: his failed hunger strike might have gone on a bit longer had he not had a few in his pocket. Mr Sheehan, your comments are telling. We know what it is all about. The obsession with hunger strikers, with commemorating terrorism and with border polls is all about distraction: distraction from failure on the home front, whether it is an Infrastructure Minister who cannot build roads; an Economy Minister who cannot pass her own charter for trade unions; or whether it is a Finance Minister who, one day, tells us all that we should sign up to a draft Budget and, the next day, comes out to say that it is not enough. It is typical Sinn Féin distraction and bluster, but you need that type of bluster. When you are championing wacky policies such as wee girls can be wee boys or wee boys can be wee girls, or issues such as that of Irish unity, it is all bluster. It is distraction from the party opposite's failed open border policy. All those issues feed into the distraction. Then, President Trump throws the dead cat on the table and, just like that, hook, line and sinker, up line the SDLP and Sinn Féin. Who would have thought it, folks? Sinn Féin was actually out protesting against President Trump's arrival at the weekend, possibly the first Irish republican party to make such a protest.

I take Sinn Féin's position on Irish unity and that of President Trump as seriously as Canada's becoming the fifty-first state, Greenland's becoming the fifty-second and Venezuela's becoming the fifty-third. I was half surprised that he did not offer up Northern Ireland as the fifty-fourth state, but we will see how he goes with the fifty-first. It is distraction. I have confidence in the people of Northern Ireland, and I have every faith that unionists across this country will realise what the game is, get behind unionism and deliver a message to Sinn Féin and other separatists across the UK very soon.

Mr Gaston: It should come as no surprise to anyone that Michelle O'Neill joins her fellow nationalists today to call for the break-up of our United Kingdom. She cannot come before the Executive Office Committee, but she can scurry away to Cardiff with her fellow nationalists. That shows you the contempt that she has for this place.

I remind all sides of the House that it was not that long ago that unionism could have, in unison, pointed out that the First Minister of Scotland and the First Minister of Wales diminish themselves by standing beside the deputy leader of Sinn Féin. As much as I have profound differences with the SNP and Plaid Cymru, I cannot point to a pile of bodies that they had to step over to get to where they are today. That is not the case for Sinn Féin, no matter how many smiling and nodding dogs it has on its Benches.

I think today, for example, of RUC Reserve officer John Proctor, who was shot in the car park in O'Neill's constituency as he was outside the Mid Ulster Hospital in Magherafelt after visiting his wife and son 45 years ago today, all in the name of "freeing Ireland". Shame, too, on those unionists who have stood alongside Sinn Féin time and time again out there in the Great Hall. What has that done? It has sent a message that standing with those who continue to justify and defend the likes of the murder of John Proctor is acceptable. Not in my name.

This morning, I heard our deputy First Minister, Emma Little-Pengelly, on the radio bemoaning the fact that O'Neill is First Minister. What our deputy First Minister forgot to go on to say was that her party changed the rules and allowed Michelle O'Neill to become First Minister.

The DUP changed the rules, meaning that it went not to the largest designation, which, to this day, is "Unionist", but to the largest party. That opened the door and allowed Michelle O'Neill to come in. Why? It was because the DUP wanted to blackmail the unionist people come election time.

At the previous election, my party went to the public and made it crystal clear that we would not serve under a Sinn Féin First Minister. Had others taken the same approach or even kept to their principles and commitments that there would be no Stormont or Executive while the protocol remained in place, today's meeting would not have taken place. The political stunt —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Mr Gaston: — would not have been given the airtime —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up. I call Gerry Carroll.

Mr Gaston: — that it has been given. Not in my name.

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. The myth that was sold for centuries was that the Union would be better for people and improve their lives, but, when you look at crumbling public services in Cardiff, Glasgow and Belfast, you see that nothing could be further from the truth. That is why today's event — the conference of First Ministers in Cardiff — is important and absolutely welcome. It shows the growing support for constitutional change and the break-up of the United Kingdom, which would be an important and positive thing.

Today is not the first or last step, but it should and, hopefully, will rejuvenate the conversation about what is possible in the years ahead. It is a case not just of having proper public services and defending what we have but of taking a position on the border. It is not "either/or", as some suggest. Unionists say that constitutional change will not happen or is not popular, but they have gone apoplectic about a meeting in Cardiff, which shows that, beneath their bluster, they know what is really going on.

Whilst there are many shades of unionism, it has to be said that unionism was an ideology and a political movement carved up by the British Establishment in cahoots with industrial and capital representatives in the North. It has nothing to offer working-class people of any religion or none. Division and sectarianism were used not only to divide the working class but to drive down wages to make sure that those in Belfast were paid less than those in Liverpool or elsewhere.

Often, unionists say, "What about the NHS and the economy?" when giving some of the reasons to defend the Union. What about them? The NHS has been completely stripped of funding, mostly by unionist parties and Ministers, while people struggle to get operations, beds and proper treatment. We have a cost-of-living crisis. If you talk about being the sixth or seventh biggest economy in the world, people who are struggling will laugh in your face. The cost-of-living crisis is strangling people. Unionists need to be challenged on those points.

Far be it from my job to defend the First Minister, but it is rich for the deputy First Minister to criticise Michelle O'Neill for going on a solo run. She is the same deputy First Minister who went over to Washington with her party colleagues to kiss the boot of Donald Trump — what is good for the goose and all that — who is not an ally for a united Ireland and is, it should be said, a genocidal maniac. He should be protested against at all costs.

My party calls on Andy Burnham to change his position and name the date for a referendum. A vote to end the border is a democratic right —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Gerry.

Mr Carroll: — despite what the people to my right may —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Carroll: — shout in your ear.

Mrs Mason: What is happening in Cardiff is significant. Right now, the First Minister of the North, Michelle O'Neill, is sitting down with the leaders of Scotland and Wales with one democratic message: our future is ours to decide. Think about how far the North has come. We now have an Irish republican First Minister. Our First Minister for all represents a changing North and is leading the conversation about what comes next.

Let us be clear: no British Prime Minister can take the issue of Irish unity off the table. The Good Friday Agreement belongs to the people. It gives us the democratic pathway to reunification, and now we need to prepare for that. It is about building a better Ireland with better healthcare, a stronger economy, a thriving education system and opportunities for our young people where all identities are respected.

There are still those who seek to downplay the significance of the election of a nationalist First Minister, but today shows just how misplaced such comments are. Michelle O'Neill is in Cardiff as an equal alongside the leaders of Scotland and Wales discussing our shared belief that people must have the right to determine their future. Make no bones about it, that is hugely significant.

Today's summit comes as the conversation on Irish unity is growing as never before. We have heard interventions from the American president that have clearly rattled and embarrassed the DUP. Fine Gael is talking about a blueprint for Irish unity. Even the Taoiseach has spoken about the need for greater clarity on the criteria for a border poll.

The direction of travel is clear. Irish unity is no longer a conversation for some distant day but a political reality. The conversation is happening right now, so we need to prepare for it. Today, our First Minister is demonstrating something powerful: our future will be decided for us not at Westminster but by the people of Ireland.

Mr Brett: Before I get into my contribution, I have to respond to some of the remarks that have been made here today. The Member for Mid Ulster Ms Sheerin said that the people of Northern Ireland want to see progress and move forward, yet she is the very Member who went to celebrate and speak at a commemoration of Thomas McElwee, a man

who burnt an innocent woman to death. [Interruption.]

All that Sinn Féin does is glorify terrorism. The Member does not like being called out on her hypocrisy. [Interruption.]

I have had the misfortune of reading the so-called declaration by Sinn Féin, the SNP and Plaid Cymru. It is quite an achievement. Three political parties, four signatures, several logos and a trip to Wales have somehow produced absolutely nothing, although, apparently, if they sign the bottom of the declaration, the United Kingdom will disappear. Well, well. We are still here. We are not going away, you know.

Let us look at the declaration. It begins by telling us:

Well done for stating facts. It goes on to state that the break-up of the United Kingdom is just around the corner. We are all used to Mystic Meg, but Mystic Mary Lou McDonald has taken on an absolutely cracking role in the matter. The year 2016 came and went; 2024 came and went; and 2028, which, the First Minister said, was when there would be a border poll, was soon replaced by 2030. I have no doubt that I will be standing here in 2030 listening to another Sinn Féin promise of yet another border poll date.

The important thing about the declaration, however, is that it undermines Sinn Féin's own argument. The declaration states that each nation:

democratically. That is absolutely right. Scotland has already decided its constitutional future, having voted to remain part of the United Kingdom. The people of Northern Ireland have that democratic right, and they have expressed it continually at elections. In 1998, pro-Irish unity parties received 38% of the vote; in 2026, the percentage still sits at 38%. All their bluster and false claims to blag people into voting for them have not moved their agenda of Irish unity forward one iota. What was it all about? Despite all the graves that Sinn Féin made and all the terrorists that it celebrates, it still proudly lives under British rule.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That finishes the Matter of the Day.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: If Members wish to be called to make a statement, they should indicate by continually rising in their place. Members who are called will have up to three minutes in which to speak. I remind Members that interventions are not permitted and that I will not take any points of order until the item of business has finished.

Ms Murphy: I rise to express my deep concern about the decision of the Education Authority (EA) to permanently close the kitchen at St Joseph's Primary School in Donagh. The decision has caused significant anxiety amongst parents, staff and the wider community, who rightly value the role that the kitchen plays in the life of that rural school.

I welcome the fact that, following a recent meeting, the EA has now agreed to carry out an assessment of alternative costings, based on the previous, and successful, three-school model. However, the development raises this fundamental question: why was an assessment of alternative costings not completed before the decision was taken to close the school kitchen permanently? Any decision of that significance should have been informed by a full assessment of all viable options. How did the EA reach a definitive conclusion if alternative models were not even looked at? The fact that that work is now being carried out reinforces concerns that the decision-making process was premature and lacked any credibility. Communities have every right to expect that all viable alternatives are examined before permanent decisions that affect their children and their local schools are made. What makes the situation even more frustrating is the lack of transparency surrounding the entire decision-making process. Parents and governors have sought answers on the rationale for the closure: the assessments undertaken, the alternatives considered, and whether the full implications for that rural school community were properly evaluated.

Such decisions further undermine the confidence of our rural communities. School kitchens are far more than just workplaces in which meals are prepared; they are part of the fabric of our school communities. They support local employment, provide flexibility in meeting pupils' needs and contribute to the sustainability of rural education. The EA must now get its act together, fully reassess its decision and ensure that proper equality and rural needs considerations are applied. My Sinn Féin colleagues and I will continue to stand with parents and the wider community of Donagh in calling for full transparency and accountability. Most importantly, I will stand with the pupils of St Joseph's, whose interests must remain at the centre of every decision that is made about their education and well-being.

Mr Buckley: There is nothing like the approach of an election to make some populist parties pay attention. Surprise, surprise, bang on cue, up pops Mary Lou; she has woken up and smelled the coffee about Sinn Féin's disastrous, harmful approach to illegal and uncontrolled immigration. She said:

It did not take a statement from Mary Lou for the people of Northern Ireland — unionist, nationalist and other — or the people of the Republic of Ireland to catch on to the fact that Sinn Féin was on a very different track from the people of this proud country on the issue. However, it is too little, too late: people do not look for election slogans, which Sinn Féin is so keen to put out as bluster and distraction; they look at the record. There is quite a substantive record of Sinn Féin's calling those who oppose uncontrolled immigration and those who want to speak up about illegal immigration as racist, far right and wrong. Sinn Féin's record in the European Parliament is clear: it voted against a motion to establish return hubs for those arriving into countries illegally. It described it as a racist policy. In the Assembly, it voted against a motion that called on the UK Government to implement strong border control. At Westminster, its Members do not even turn up to shout and make their voices known when it matters.

More duplicity, more hypocrisy and more cover-up from Sinn Féin. That should not be lost on anybody, and I argue that it is not lost on the voting people of Northern Ireland. Whether it is protests in Newry against illegal and uncontrolled immigration, the disturbances and agitation in west Belfast over illegal and uncontrolled immigration or farmers across the breadth of Northern Ireland saying that the party has lost its way, that conversation is happening, and Sinn Féin's approach is too little, too late. The people of Northern Ireland will not be bluffed by those who have championed open borders since their establishment when it comes to dealing with illegal and uncontrolled immigration.

Mr McReynolds: As someone who lives with multiple sclerosis and as chair of the all-party group on MS and neurology, I thank the Northern Ireland Neurological Charities Alliance for its report 'Left Behind: The Price of Inaction on Neurology Reform', which was launched just last week. The report estimates that neurological conditions cost Northern Ireland £2·72 billion every year, with delays to reform potentially costing our economy up to £869 million annually. It also estimates that an investment of £13 million — just £13 million — a year over five years could deliver significant economic benefits that could transform not only part of our health service but the lives of the patients who rely on it. Alliance has consistently raised the point about savings versus efficiencies in discussions about reform — we have done so time and again. If we refuse to invest strategically in reform, we risk continuing to absorb much greater costs in the long term, and that is before even considering the human cost, which is very real. There is a need to invest strategically in our health service and to focus on better health outcomes for the people of Northern Ireland.

Neurology has the longest waiting times of any specialty in Northern Ireland, with 28,188 people currently waiting for a first neurology appointment, and some waiting for more than seven years. The report warns that "inaction is not a neutral position" but a political choice. Delays in diagnosis and treatment can lead to worsening health, greater demand for emergency care and fewer people being able to remain in work.

The regional review of neurology services was commissioned in 2018, and its final report was published in 2025. Last year, Alliance responded to that consultation to outline the serious and systemic challenges in neurology services and support the four priorities set out in the review, which are: a person-centred service, developing additional workforce capacity within neurology, addressing gaps in existing services and using current resources more effectively. We strongly supported the vision but urged that the focus needed to be on delivery. Person-centred, evidence-based care cannot simply be a recommendation in a report; it has to be reflected in how services are designed and delivered, with the needs and lived experience of people with neurological conditions at the centre.

The issues faced by people with neurological conditions go well beyond waiting lists. People living with conditions such as multiple sclerosis also deal with barriers to accessing services and wider support, including concerns with the personal independence payment system. Those issues have a direct impact on people's ability to manage their conditions and live independently. We need to move from review to reform and from short-term savings to better outcomes for patients and our health service as a whole.

Mr Burrows: At the most recent meeting of the Policing Board, the Chief Constable stated that PSNI officers here — men and women who serve us across society — are more likely than those in any other part of the United Kingdom to allow themselves to be assaulted before using force, for fear that they will not be supported if they protect themselves. Those are mothers, fathers, sons and daughters who are being injured because of the scandalous lack of support that they have received.

There are a number of reasons why we are where we are. The first is that the Police Ombudsman, as an organisation, has been dysfunctional and punitive. It has subjected good officers to years of investigation. In air-conditioned offices, it has examined young men and women who grapple with violent criminals and make split-second judgements. It judges them for weeks and months instead of dealing with the bad cops. That is why the Ulster Unionist Party is pushing for serious reforms of the Police Ombudsman that would deal with vexatious complainants and the lack of accountability in the Office of the Police Ombudsman.

Of course, the Policing Board has failed to spot those trends and cultures. That is why reform is also needed there. A lot of the fault — not exclusively, but largely — lies with the Members opposite, in Sinn Féin. Time after time, they have condemned outright snippets of social media clips of an officer using force.

They were straight on to police commanders — I was one of them — saying, "Suspend him. Suspend him. Throw him out". Time and time again, it was a young officer, sometimes a Catholic officer, who was trying to serve their country.

Of course, at Ormeau Road, Michelle O'Neill herself rang the Chief Constable and Gerry Kelly rang the Deputy Chief Constable, demanding that an officer be suspended. That kind of kangaroo courtism that they operated in the backstreet alleys in the areas where they used to have strongholds through the IRA has been, in many ways, extended to try to get summary punishment for police officers. The media have lapped it up. You have created an environment where officers in this country are worried about protecting themselves and worried about protecting everyone else in case you jump on the bandwagon, in case the ombudsman drags them over the coals and in case the media report them. Wrong —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Ms Hunter: Endometriosis, polyendocrine metabolic ovarian syndrome (PMOS), premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD) and adenomyosis are ongoing women's health issues in the North that are not being treated effectively. Women's health issues are being overlooked, and women feel unseen and unheard. I held an event last week on those issues in my constituency, and what I heard was the definition of scandalous, particularly how women in the North are being treated on the issue of endometriosis. It is truly nothing short of a scandal. In years to come, we will look back at this moment in time as a dark chapter in our history, horrified by our lack of action for those women. I will share a few stories, and, by the end of that, I think that you will agree.

One of the most horrifying stories that I have heard is one that is beyond belief. I spoke with a woman who waited years for surgery to alleviate her pain. She had botched surgery and now bleeds from three areas in her body during her menstrual cycle, one of which is her belly button. In the year of 2026, the complete lack of dignity for a woman in Northern Ireland with endometriosis experiencing bleeding through her clothes at work is an absolute scandal and an absolute disgrace. Another lady with whom I spoke received surgery in her trust area from a surgeon who was not trained in gynaecology surgeries. She now lives in more pain than she did in the years waiting for her surgery. Another woman who had endometriosis and who had got her period for the first time at the age of eight was later discriminated against when it came to her care. She was in a same-sex relationship and was told not to worry too much about her reproductive system because of that. She is now married to a man and struggling to conceive.

While all of those are horrific experiences, I am pleased today to share those stories to really honour the experience of those women, who deserve to be heard. Another young lady, recently married like me, who works in the arts, dreams of starting a family, but, because of negligence in her trust area, she fears that that dream will never come true. She is self-employed in the arts. She said, "Who would want to hire me? I do not get any sick pay, and I fall ill regularly". Another woman said that at, the age of 15, she felt coerced into a very uncomfortable internal scan. She was told by the doctor, "If you do not get this done today, you are wasting my time, you are wasting your time and you will not know what is wrong with you".

I say this passionately as a woman on the Education Committee. Another young lady who started her periods at eight is now 12 years old, and her attendance at school is just 22% because she lives in chronic agony. That is shocking stuff. It has really stuck with me over the weekend, particularly because the number of women who have said that they feel acutely suicidal because of their never-ending pain was clear.

We cannot give back the years that those women have lost in their lives to endometriosis, but we can make sure that the next generation will not have to lose theirs. Let us be the generation of elected representatives who stop normalising the chronic pain of women in our communities. Women deserve to be believed, women deserve to be diagnosed and women in Northern Ireland deserve to be treated.

Mr Sheehan: Sciurdann éan as gach ealta agus is fíor sin i gcás Yuval Abraham agus Rachel Szor, beirt iriseoirí as Iosrael. Rinneadh scannán de chuid na beirte sin a léiriú den chéad uair ag Féile Scannán na Veinéise an tseachtain seo caite. ‘NAZA’ an teideal atá ar an scannán acu. Baineann ceannairí míleata in Iosrael úsáid as an téarma NAZA le cur síos ar líon na sibhialtach a mharóidh siad ina gcuid ionsaí míleata. Féadann ráta an NAZA sin bheith thart ar 20 duine i ngach ionsaí, nó líon is scaoilte ná sin, má tá siad ag iarraidh sráidbhaile iomlán a scriosadh.

Is minic a leabhair mé sa Teach ar an chinedhíothú atá Iosrael a dhéanamh in Gaza. Is minic a luaigh mé Jews for Justice for Palestine, agus is minic a mhol mé do na Comhaltaí sa Teach seo a bheith ag léamh na dtuairiscí atá ag an ghrúpa Iosraelach do chearta an duine B’Tselem. Ach ní haon tuairisc ó ghrúpa do cearta an duine é seo, ach scannán atá bunaithe, go huile is go hiomlán, ar agallaimh le saighdiúirí agus le hoifigigh faisnéise in arm Iosrael. Agus ní chuireann siad fiacail ann: "Rinneadh ár coiteann," arsa oifigeach Iosraelach amháin sa scannán. Is furasta sin a chreidbheáil, nó mharaigh na hIosraelaigh breis agus 73,000 Palaistíneach san ár seo. Déanann na hoifigigh faisnéise cur síos sa scannán ar an dóigh a n-úsáideann siad an intleacht shaorga le teacht ar na Palaistínigh atá le marú. Bailíonn an intleacht shaorga sonraí ó ghutháin phóca in Gaza. Is leor teachtaireacht ó pháiste á rá, "Tá daidí sa bhaile", is leor sin le haer-ruathar a chur ar obair. Déanann saighdiúirí Iosraelacha cur síos sa scannán ar na limistéir le seachaint thart ar na háiteanna a mbíonn cabhair dhaonnúil á tabhairt amach. Ní chuireann na hIosraelaigh na limistéir sin in iúl do na Palaistínigh, áfach ach scaoileann siad na Palaistínigh a théann isteach iontu agus iad ar lorg cabhrach. Mar a dúirt saighdiúir Iosraelach sa scannán, "Cheannaigh siad an chiall sin lena gcuid fola". Is furasta sin a chreidbheáil fosta, nó, dar leis na Náisiúin Aontaithe gur mharaigh na hIosraelaigh 400 Palaistíneach a bhí ar lorg cabhrach.

Níl leithscéal ag duine ar bith as bheith dall ar an chinedhíothú atá ar obair in Gaza. Tá an t-eolas ar an chinedhíothú sin á chur ar ár súile dúinn ag Jews for Justice for Palestine, ag B’Tselem agus ag iriseoirí cróga as Iosrael. Bíodh sin mar atá, tá an tAontas Eorpach, na Stáit Aontaithe agus barraíocht tíortha eile ina dtost faoin ár go fóill.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sin é, a Phat.

Mr Sheehan: Mar a dúirt Yuval Abraham agus Rachel Szor, "fúinn féin uilig atá sé an tost sin a bhriseadh".

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sin é, a Phat.

Ms Forsythe: Again, I rise in the Chamber to speak up for life. On Friday past, in Westminster, our UK Parliament chose life. The assisted suicide Bill was defeated by 286 votes to 270. The DUP welcomes that result. I am grateful to the parliamentarians for voting in that way, as it was not the majority position previously. Parliament has chosen the protection of vulnerable people. Our DUP MPs have shown up consistently on the issue and have consistently opposed assisted suicide, because the answer to suffering must be better care, not a pathway to death.

I am especially proud of my colleague Carla Lockhart MP, who has led on the issue. She spoke with power and dignity in the debate on Friday. I have no doubt that her work and her words made a big impact on those who were undecided before the marginal vote on Friday. Carla set out our clear opposition to the Bill from a strong Christian and conscience perspective, as well as outlining how dangerous the Bill was. It was dangerous for those who cannot not speak for themselves, for the vulnerable and for the elderly.

The defeat of the Bill is welcome and significant. Our focus should be on giving people reasons to live; ensuring that everyone who faces terminal illness has access to high-quality palliative and end-of-life care; and protecting those who may feel that they are vulnerable or a burden on others. Once the state crosses the line from protecting life to facilitating its ending, the consequences are profound. Parliament was right to reject that course. The Bill was not about easing the excruciating pain of someone who is nearing the end of their life by increasing a dosage; it was about allowing the administration of lethal drugs to end lives — to go against the very grain of the NHS, which saves lives every day.

Terminal illness and deep pain come to every family. We have all lived through difficult times and shared in the devastating experience of the suffering of a loved one. There needs to be better healthcare as an answer to that.

We really need now to see the same determination to improve hospice and palliative care so that dignity and support are available to every person and family that need them.

Friday was an emotional day in Parliament, with many powerful stories shared. It was emotional to see the Bill defeated. It is a testament to those who stood firm on their principles, holding their minority position, often feeling despair but continuing to stand up for the right thing. It paid off; the Bill was defeated. That was a welcome day for life in the United Kingdom.

Ms Nicholl: Twenty years ago, 17-year-old Jane McVeigh died after she ate a piece of food that was contaminated with nuts. I did not actually know Jane. I was in the year above her at a different school, but I had lots of friends who did know her. The impact that her death had on them and on the community was profound, and I think about her often.

A few years ago, a mother came into my office whose daughter had some of the worst food allergies in Northern Ireland. She was highly allergic to so much. Her mum, Carol Anne, said to me that childhood was meant to be magical — it was when you could be a child — and she spent summers wiping down the slides in play parks to make sure that there were no ice cream drops on them and being paranoid at birthday parties. The more that I worked with Carol Anne and her daughter and came to know other allergy parents, I realised how much they were fighting against a system that does not recognise what is at risk. What they fear is what happened to Jane and what her family went through.

The more work that you do and the more people who work in that allergy space to whom you speak, the more you realise how far behind we are in Northern Ireland, and I do not understand why we are not talking about this more. The Benedict Blythe Foundation, which does amazing campaigning work, succeeded in changing the law in England but that has not happened here. We need to make schools safer for children with allergies. It is not just about education; it is about health, transport, workplaces and every aspect of our lives, and all of that falls on the parent to make sure that their child is safe. I cannot imagine anything more debilitating than wondering every day whether your child is going to survive, and we are not having the conversation as a society about what we need to do to make life safer for them.

In June, the national allergy strategy was launched, and we hosted an event in Parliament Buildings. There is a clear need, however, for cross-departmental working to put in place what the national allergy strategy is calling for because provision is fragmented and under-resourced. I recommend that every Member in the Chamber reads the national allergy strategy and thinks about how our portfolios relate to it, because 39% of children in the UK are affected by allergic disease. That is increasing, and we are not doing enough to make sure that those children are protected. I pay tribute to Dr Caoimhe Glancy, the National Allergy Strategy Group, Food Allergy NI, and all the parents who are doing so much to champion the issue, which is something that we really have to get behind.

Mr McCrossan: Last week, I stood in the House and raised the disgraceful and shocking conditions faced by patients and staff at Altnagelvin Area Hospital emergency department. Since then, I have spoken to and heard from hundreds of people about the horrendous and horrific experiences that they have faced in our health service. What they told me should absolutely shame the Sinn Féin/DUP-led Executive who have spent more time poking holes in each other about flags and marches than they have in putting the interests of our people first when it comes to access to our health service.

One man told me that he spent 73 hours in a chair in the emergency department — 73 hours, that is three days, sitting there waiting for care. He told me that the man sitting beside him had died while waiting for care. Another man told me that his 93-year-old mother spent 47 hours sitting on a chair waiting for a hospital bed whilst in extreme pain. A woman spoke of sitting on the floor caring for her 99-year-old grandfather who was left sitting on a chair with a wound to his head for 12 hours.

A family told me that their 87-year-old mother had spent three days in the emergency department, during which time she could not even access the toilet because there was only one there. Another patient described spending more than 60 hours in the emergency department, unable to get a bed and thus unable to sleep for three days while suffering severe pain, surrounded by people who were struggling with mental health issues and others with an alcohol addiction or other addictions, who were intoxicated.

What more evidence do the Executive need? Those are real people. They are our parents, our grandparents and our children. They are elderly people, sick people and frightened people. They are people who have worked all their life and paid into the health service, who, at their most vulnerable moment, are being left to sit on hard chairs and to lie in corridors for days seeking care. People are promised a modern healthcare service that they can access, but ours has become a Third World service.

People rightly praise our doctors, nurses, healthcare assistants and support workers, all of whom are holding the system together, but staff are exhausted. They are trying to care for seriously ill patients and then trying to deal with people who are drunk or heavily intoxicated. One person described to me the moral injury suffered by staff, who know the standard of care that patients deserve but who simply do not have the beds, space or capacity to look after them.

For many years, we have been promised a new emergency department at Altnagelvin. Every time that the matter is raised, there is a new excuse given, but the truth is that the hospital can no longer cope and that people are dying while this place —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Daniel.

Mr McCrossan: — is dithering.

Mrs Mason: I make this statement following contact from victims and victims' families after they watched the Westminster Northern Ireland Affairs Committee meeting on 9 September. They contacted me after hearing Mark Thompson of Relatives for Justice challenge the DUP leader, Gavin Robinson, about his party's links to Ulster Resistance. What struck victims and victims' families was that direct questions about Ulster Resistance and senior DUP figures' role in it were simply not answered, so I will raise them here.

Ulster Resistance was publicly launched in the Ulster Hall in November 1986. DUP figures were present. Ian Paisley publicly expressed support for the organisation, while Peter Robinson was associated with its formation. Rev Ivan Foster, himself a DUP Assembly Member and a Free Presbyterian minister at the time, subsequently described Ulster Resistance as, "a DUP-sponsored — parented — movement."

Within a short period, Ulster Resistance was involved in procuring and importing a substantial consignment of weapons from South Africa in a strategic effort to arm the UDA and the UVF to mount a murderous campaign against the Catholic community, in opposition to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Police intelligence that the Police Ombudsman examined recorded that senior members of the UDA, the UVF and Ulster Resistance met to discuss the purchase and importation of arms, with the weapons subsequently being divided among the three organisations.

For victims, that is not just history but part of a story of how loyalist paramilitaries acquired weapons that were subsequently used to murder their loved ones, including in notorious atrocities at the Thierafurth Inn in Kilcoo and the Heights Bar in Loughinisland. Those who were murdered are not simply names associated with the conflict but loved ones.

Fundamental questions therefore remain. What did senior DUP figures know about Ulster Resistance, and when? What did they know about the procurement and distribution of the weapons? What information remains that could assist victims, families and the authorities in establishing the truth? There is another question, particularly for the PSNI, and it is this: where are those weapons now? The DUP speaks about challenging the glorification of terrorism, but the same standard must apply to everyone. It is not about collective guilt but about accountability and the right of victims to know what happened.

The families who contacted me deserve to know why those questions were not answered. There must be one standard of truth, one standard of accountability, no protected history —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Cathy.

Mrs Mason: — and no hierarchy of victims. Victims deserve the truth.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Apologies to the other Members who put their name down. Every Member who spoke took three minutes, leaving no time at all for anyone else, and those from the smaller parties in particular, to get in. I will leave that with you.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I have received notification from members of the Business Committee of a motion to extend the sitting past 7.00 pm under Standing Order 10(3A).

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

Mr O'Toole: I beg to move

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

Mr O'Toole, please open the debate on the motion.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Welcome back after the summer to all those who are elected to represent the public in Northern Ireland. Whether they are unionist, nationalist or neither, whether they are working in the public sector or the private sector or whether they are young or old, whatever their status, all people here rely on public services, and all of them have a fundamental right to expect that their devolved Government — the people who are elected to office and who accept the office, the salary, the ministerial car and the Civil Service support that go along with it — are willing to do the most basic thing expected of any Government: set a Budget. However, thus far, the Executive have completely failed to do so. In fact, they have refused to do so.

We will come on to discussions about the quantum of the Executive's Budget and the financial settlement, because, as I will say repeatedly, and as, I know, other Members will raise repeatedly, the Executive have a legitimate argument in seeking the maximum possible funding, but we have to start from this premise: it is a profound failure of our politics to refuse to set a Budget; it is not a negotiating strategy, a tactic or a consequence of a little political difficulty. It is a profound failure by the two big parties in particular, who have run this region for 20 years and who, based on the evidence of today and, I am sure, the increasing evidence of the weeks and months to come, cannot or will not govern together. In fact, they have a structural political incentive to refuse to get along with one another. All the while, our public services slowly suffer.

My colleague Mr McCrossan just mentioned the gravity of the situation at Altnagelvin Hospital's accident and emergency department, and that situation will be replicated across the hospital estate in the North. We are, as we all know, 10 years on from the Bengoa report, which was supposed to herald significant reform and improved services for people. We also have multiple other big structural challenges in the immediate and long term in our public services, but there is literally no way to address those problems without setting a Budget.

Just the week before last, the SDLP Opposition asked public servants, those who deliver public services and members of the general public who use the public services to get in touch and explain the impact of there being no Budget on their day-to-day work and lives. The responses were wide and broad because they are not just the big things that relate to the health service. We all know the crisis that is being created; we all know the challenge around public-sector pay and wages if a Budget is not set. Someone who works in environmental governance got in touch with me to say that a key project is not proceeding because there is no Budget. A student teacher got in touch with me to say that their bursary for STEM teaching cannot proceed. A retired person got in touch with me to say that the adult art class that they had enjoyed for some time at the local tech is being discontinued because there is no Budget.

It will be said that it is because the British Government have not funded this place, but here is the problem with that argument: I agree, the British Government have questions to answer about the funding of this place. The next question is this: is refusing to set a Budget six months into the financial year a legitimate or appropriate way to secure better funding? I do not think that it is. I will preempt all those who will stand up and say, "The SDLP wants us to accept a terrible Budget. The SDLP this, and the SDLP that". I can already see Mr Kingston nodding in agreement. That is fine. I have already made the point for you, lads. I know that you are going to say that because you have said it multiple times before, but here is the thing: you have had two and a half years to agree a multi-year Budget. You could and should have agreed on a set of key priorities for the public in the North, Decisions should have been made about reforming the health service, decisions about investment in our waste water infrastructure so that we can build social homes, and decisions about our schools estate. Some of those will be difficult decisions, but they require political leadership. They require the people who accept office to say, "The situation is not ideal. We want more money from the British Government. We think that there is a structural funding problem" — the Opposition have never disputed that, by the way — "These are the choices that we — Sinn Féin, the DUP, the Alliance Party and the Ulster Unionists — want to make collectively as the Executive. We challenge the official Opposition to support us in making an argument for investment and structural change in our public services, and this is how we want it to be funded".

The Executive did not do that. That has not happened. The Executive have drifted six months into the financial year and pushed all the responsibility for cuts on to the public services and ordinary public servants. The people who run our hospitals, schools, community groups and the community and voluntary sector are being forced to make the cuts because politicians, who accept power and wages, will not take responsibility. We have never said that the UK Government fund this place properly, and I have never used any of the offensive or stupid language about the "begging bowl". I have never said that, and I would never say that. I understand how cynical and disinterested the UK Government are; I understand it well. Not only am I the Chair of the Finance Committee, but I was a UK Government civil servant. I know that this place does not really matter over there. Here is the thing: that reality underlines the importance of taking responsibility here and not letting them off the hook because irresponsibility here breeds cynicism there. The UK Government can simply say, "Look, those guys are just fighting as usual. They are not about the public and delivering public services in Northern Ireland; they are just fighting." That kind of cynicism from London is pernicious. However, when the Executive refuse to agree a plan; it makes it worse.

It also makes it worse when a draft Budget is published without agreement, and the Finance Minister tells us that it will be transformative although there is no agreement from his Executive colleagues. They immediately fall out with one another, rather than saying, "Let's come together and make a plan to take to the United Kingdom Government that shows the investment that we want to make to improve health, waste water and the key priorities for the public of Northern Ireland". That has not happened either. We have been blamed for holding the Executive to account for failing to set a Budget.

We have also held the UK Government to account for their lack of seriousness in this. An exercise was done some months ago called the "open-book exercise". I was clear that that was not a good idea, and I said in the Chamber that it was an exercise in Treasury cynicism. The Finance Minister agreed to it. He said that it would be an opportunity for the UK Government to see the pressures. I was fairly certain that it would be a high-level, cynical attempt to simply throw things back in the faces of the local Executive, and so it proved.

I genuinely do not think that these decisions are easy, but simply refusing to take responsibility makes them worse. The Fiscal Council has made it clear that there are differences in how Northern Ireland is funded versus Scotland and Wales. I want to be clear: the Finance Minister has a case, and I assume that the First Minister will make those arguments in meetings with her counterparts in Scotland and Wales today — whatever the status of those meetings, before the DUP gets too excited about that. For the record, I accept and agree with that, as I have done on every occasion when I have had the opportunity. However, I do not accept that a correct way to deal with it and to get a better financial settlement for this place is to simply refuse all responsibility.

We have a problem here with Executive Ministers who want to take office but refuse responsibility. They want power but no accountability. That cannot go on. It is one of the reasons why trust in politics here is so low. I want ordinary people to feel that, whether they like this place or not — few people do, I am afraid — and whether they are unionists and want to stay in the UK or, like me, believe in a new Ireland, people here are doing their best for them in difficult circumstances and making decisions to improve their lives. I cannot, hand on heart, say that people believe that right now. That is not me being opportunistic and oppositional for the sake of it; that is the official Opposition holding the Executive to account for not doing their job properly and holding the UK Government to account for their cynicism about it.

The UK Government need to get real in their engagement with the Executive. I encourage them to produce the best possible financial settlement, and I commend the fact that some slow, belated progress has been made. It is not unreasonable for me to ask why it could not have been done six months ago or last year; it should have been. If the Executive, particularly Sinn Féin and the DUP, were more focused on the public good rather than constantly poking each other in the eye for their own electoral advantage, there might have been a joined-up plan. Drumcree and all sorts of other nonsense that comes up is all distraction from the real issue, which is public services and doing right by the people who send us here. We will keep pressing the Executive to do their job and agree a Budget. We want the best possible financial settlement, and we encourage the Executive in those discussions, but we really should not have got into this situation. It is a failure for the people of Northern Ireland.

I commend the motion to the House.

Miss Hargey: I beg to move amendment No 1:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you. You will have 10 minutes in which to propose amendment No 1 and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech.

Miss Hargey: Thanks very much. I welcome the opportunity to move the Sinn Féin amendment. It is important, as it gets to the core of the Budget challenges and the fundamental issue, which is that we have not received a fair and sustainable funding package. That is a fact recognised not only by the Executive parties but by the independent Fiscal Council, and it is conclusive evidence that confirms that we should be funded fairly and to our level of need.

While an Executive Budget is ultimately about choices, the choices are made within a financial framework that has been imposed on us from Westminster. We need to be absolutely clear: the people of the North should not have to pay the price for a funding model that does not properly reflect the needs of our population or the pressures facing our public services. Our health service is under immense pressure. Our schools are dealing with rising costs and growing demand. Public services and communities struggle with the consequences of years of underinvestment and austerity, and families feel the impact every day through the rising cost of living.

The Executive have a responsibility to make the best possible use of the resources available to them. Sinn Féin will always support responsible budgeting, transformation and meeting need. That is why our Ministers negotiated the fiscal framework and the transformation fund with the support of the Executive. The British Government have repeatedly presented the funding settlement for the North as generous, but the reality on the ground tells a different story. The current arrangement includes a 24% needs-based factor in the Barnett formula, reflecting the independent assessment that the North requires around 124% of comparable spending per head because of its particular circumstances. That principle is welcome. However, it comes only after the Executive have been pushing for that change.

We know that more needs to be done, particularly in the area of reflecting our need. This is just the beginning. It cannot be the end of the conversation. We need a funding model that is fair, sustainable, transparent and, importantly, based on our need, one that recognises the North's particular demographic, social and economic circumstances and provides the Executive with the resources necessary to deliver quality public services.

The British Government cannot simultaneously recognise that the North has greater relative need and expect the Executive to deliver more with less. That goes to the heart of the debate today, and it was, I feel, a secondary issue in the motion. We have seen the consequences of that approach before: short-term funding packages, uncertainty from year to year and financial pressures being pushed from one Budget cycle to the next. That is not sustainable. It is not a sustainable way to run our public services.

The draft Budget would represent a step towards a multi-annual Budget and, importantly, allow the ability to plan from year to year. Ultimately, however, those Budgets need to be underpinned by the finances that allow the Executive to manage public-sector transformation while ensuring that services can continue to run in the interim. The British Government know that. They have a responsibility to properly fund the commitments that they have made. It must also be done fairly. When we look across these islands, the disparity becomes even clearer. Scotland and Wales have access to significantly greater public investment and, crucially, have greater certainty over their funding, a position that has seen them receive in the region of between £1 billion and £3 billion in additional funding compared with what the Executive receive.

That is where I take issue with the SDLP motion. It reduces that fundamental issue of adequate funding to this comment:

Additional funding of £1 billion and £3 billion to Scotland and Wales is not just a discrepancy; it is a fundamental flaw in how we are funded. We should not be in a position where people here receive poorer public services because the British Government have failed to provide the funding and the model that properly reflect our need.

The principle is simple: funding must be based on what is fair and not on political discretion at Westminster. It must also recognise that the North has suffered from decades of underinvestment. We cannot simply start the clock again and pretend that the accumulated infrastructure deficit and pressures in our health, education and social care systems do not exist. The Executive need certainty. They also need a fair funding settlement. They need a long-term fiscal framework that allows Ministers to plan, invest and, importantly, transform public services rather than constantly managing crisis.

That means maintaining a genuine needs-based approach, reviewing the assessment of need and ensuring that the funding available to the Executive keeps pace with the real pressures on our services. The British Government have the resources to do that. Unfortunately, however, they choose to fund war over public services. We believe that they need to reverse that political choice. At this time, what is required is political will. Sinn Féin will continue to argue for a fair deal for the people of the North and have their backs in pursuing a fairer funding model — one that is based on objective need and fairness, not political discretion — because our public services should not be treated as an afterthought. Our people should not be treated as second-class citizens.

Mr McCrossan: I thank the Member for giving way. As my colleague said, we take the point about a better funding model from Westminster. Will the Member acknowledge two things, however? First, her party, with the DUP, has been in government for 20 years. There has been huge mismanagement and wastage of public funds across all Departments that has been highlighted continually by the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO).Secondly, we have benefited from substantial investment from the Irish Government through the Shared Island Fund and other projects.

Miss Hargey: I will point out that, for a good section of that, the SDLP was also in the Executive. You often leave that point out.

It goes to the fundamentals. If you do not have the proper funding envelope in the first place, you will, of course, jump from crisis to crisis. That is the fundamental issue and one of the reasons for tabling the amendment. We believe that that needs to be front and centre. Why should citizens here receive less than citizens in Scotland and Wales get? It is dressed up by the British Labour Government that, somehow, we get a generous deal. We do not get a generous deal. Thankfully, after a long time of us shouting about it, others have now come onto the page, and hopefully we are all united on that approach. Our people deserve the same opportunity as people anywhere else on these islands to access properly funded health, education and public services.

In closing, I must also mention the significance of the joint meeting that is taking place today in Cardiff between the leaders of my party — Sinn Féin — the SNP and Plaid Cymru. That meeting and the discussion among the First Ministers illustrates that our future lies in independence from Westminster and its financial constraints. The meeting also shows what we can do by working together across these islands. Independence would bring full financial powers and the ability to use those powers to invest in and transform our public services for the better and to create a truly healthy economy that is judged not on people who just cannot afford the basic necessities but where we have a people who will prosper and thrive. That is the future that I believe in and the future that we should all move towards.

Mr Tennyson: I beg to move amendment No 2:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, the amendments are mutually exclusive, so, if amendment No 1 is made, the Question will not be put on amendment No 2.

Mr Tennyson, you will have 10 minutes to propose amendment No 2 and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes. Please open the debate on amendment No 2.

Mr Tennyson: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Members might be pleased to know that I do not intend to take anywhere near the 10-minute speaking allocation.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion, but I do so conscious that there is now a live process of negotiation ongoing between Executive parties and the UK Government. It is important that we seek to reflect the spirit of confidentiality in respect of those discussions, so I may not spell out my position on the issues in as much detail as I ordinarily would in such a debate. That has not been the approach taken by some Executive Ministers, though, who seem addicted to negotiation via loudhailer. That has the dangerous effect of undermining trust and confidence between the Executive and the UK Government and raises serious questions about just how committed some parties are to the process that is now under way.

Amendment No 2 seeks to acknowledge the scale of inequity in how the funding formula operates in respect of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. As has already been referenced during the debate, if we were funded on the same basis as Wales, that would mean an additional £1 billion for the Executive. If we were funded on the same basis as Scotland, that would mean over £3 billion of additional investment for public services here. Therefore, we cannot approach the debate from a position of asking people in Northern Ireland to pay more for less. Our constituents, who work hard and pay their taxes, deserve to get a fair deal from the Treasury, as their counterparts do in other parts of these islands, and it is welcome that all parties in the Chamber have made that case and that argument.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr Tennyson: I will, yes.

Mr O'Toole: The Fiscal Council set it out in black and white. Whether you call it a "discrepancy" or "unfairness" is slightly academic; there is definitely a difference, and we have acknowledged that. However, it is also true to say that the Executive had failed to set a Budget long before that report from the Fiscal Council was published. I think that it was published either just before the start of the financial year or just into the financial year.

Mr Tennyson: The Member is correct that the issues predate the publication of the Fiscal Council report. However, the Fiscal Council confirmed a position that the Executive were already well aware of and had been communicating. It added weight and strength to the argument with Treasury, but it was not a surprise or a new argument to those of us who had been dealing closely with those issues.

It is important, as the amendment outlines, to be honest about the drastic consequences of agreeing the draft Budget as proposed earlier this year.

The Department of Justice, for example, has been a particularly frugal Department. Its spending has consistently been brought within budget, despite its share of the block grant falling from 11% to 8% over the past decade. The gap at the end of that multi-year Budget period would have been equivalent to £215 million. That accounts for the budgets of the Prison Service, Forensic Science, the Probation Board and the Youth Justice Agency. To have signed up to and legislated for the Budget proposed at the time would therefore effectively have meant defunding the Prison Service. That it is not a responsible position for any politician in the Chamber to take.

Fundamentally, the challenge with our finances is twofold. First, we have a boom and bust system, whereby a Secretary of State will ride in on a white horse and write a cheque to get us through a couple of years. Those sugar rushes to our finances may put us above the level of need for a short time and have us at the level of need in some financial years, but they will inevitably see us fall below the level of need, thus creating a cliff edge. That is not a sustainable way in which to do business, and it breeds cynicism amongst the public, amongst parties in the Chamber and in the Treasury itself. We therefore need a sustainable funding formula or, at the very least, a pathway to get us there quickly. After the previous financial package, we called for the establishment of an independent commission on Northern Ireland's funding and fiscal framework. Positive soundings were made by the previous Government about the prospect, but it was never followed up on, and, inevitably, the cliff edge that was warned about presented itself and caused the present issues.

There is also the question of credibility, which cuts both ways. In effect, we have a Pavlov's dog mentality, whereby the UK Government incentivise the position in which every financial and political issue must be elevated to crisis point before negotiations are launched and solutions found. We need to change that culture in our politics.

Secondly, as our amendment seeks to address, we also need to acknowledge our own responsibility in this Building and on the Executive. There are structural issues from the cost of division and segregation. There is potential for us to have more fiscal devolution so that we can raise revenue in a progressive way that does not unfairly burden families and so that we can do the transformation and reform of public services that we have been talking about in this Building for decades. Any agreement therefore needs to enable the Executive and tie them to taking serious decisions in those areas.

Most fundamentally of all, however, the question of sustainable public finances cannot be divorced from the question of sustainable political institutions. Far too much time and energy has been wasted and far too many opportunities squandered as a result of the institutions having been in abeyance when the public needed them most. Public services cannot be transformed from a burning platform of crisis and collapse. Rather, sustained political leadership, which has been lacking over the past 28 years, is needed. That is why our amendment refers to the need for reform of the institutions in order to remove the vetoes and the dysfunction, to remove the culture of blame-shifting and to empower the Executive to take the difficult and necessary decisions for which the public are crying out.

Alliance is committed to, and is serious about, the process that is under way with the UK Government. We are equally serious about taking the difficult but transformative decisions that would make a difference to our finances, to our public services and to people's lives.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Brian Kingston.

Mr Kingston: Do all other contributors have five minutes, Mr Deputy Speaker?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Yes.

Mr Kingston: Thank you. The SDLP motion captures very well its predictable and often contradictory approach to the politics of opposition. Here we have it criticising the Executive, as is its wont, while at the same time arguing for both sides of the issue. That suggests that the SDLP is criticising just for the sake of it. It agrees that Northern Ireland is underfunded compared with the other devolved regions of the United Kingdom. We now know that, unlike Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales have been funded well above their stated level of need. It is totally reasonable to expect Northern Ireland, as the smallest devolved region of the UK, to receive the highest per capita funding for its public services, as we do not have the same economy of scale, yet the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council's report shows that we currently receive less public funding per person than Scotland does. Indeed, Scotland is funded at 20% above its assessed level of need, and Wales is funded at 8% above its level of need, whereas Northern Ireland is funded just at our level of need. We argue that our funding level should be higher. Our four-party Executive have been united in campaigning on the fact that Northern Ireland needs more and that, for a whole range of reasons, including our lower density of population and our higher rate of public-sector employment, we cannot live within the current block grant.

In the motion, the SDLP says that it:

yet calls on the Executive and the Finance Minister, in particular, to agree a Budget based on our current block grant.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kingston: I will, yes.

Mr O'Toole: I am genuinely intrigued. This question is for any Executive party MLA: do you genuinely think that the official Opposition should just sit here and say, "That's grand" about a Government not setting a Budget? I genuinely want the answer to that question.

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

Mr Kingston: I accept that you have the right to criticise and the right to challenge the actions of Ministers and all parties in the Executive. We have the right to challenge you also, and that is what I am doing in my address. You are saying that you want to see more funding come to Northern Ireland, but, at the same time, that we should plan to live within the current block grant. I am saying that you should be honest with the public on what you are calling for. If Executive Ministers were to agree on an inadequate Budget for their Departments, as the SDLP wants, those Ministers would be required to live within that Budget and to plan and act accordingly. In effect, the SDLP is calling for savage cuts to be made to public-sector jobs and services in health, education, policing and justice, infrastructure, housing and across the whole gamut of government. Those would be the consequences of agreeing an inadequate Budget, and that would, of course, seriously undermine the efforts of the Executive to secure a greater settlement from Treasury.

I appreciate that the SDLP probably tabled the motion some time ago, but it is bad timing for the SDLP that significant progress is now being made. Our Executive's holding the line has resulted in Treasury's offer of an additional £1·5 billion over three years after talks with the new Prime Minister and the new Secretary of State for Northern Ireland — that is an extra £500 million each year for public services in Northern Ireland. Those negotiations have not yet concluded, but, if the Executive had taken the SDLP's advice, that would have seriously weakened their position in those negotiations. The prospect of an increased settlement to Northern Ireland from His Majesty's Treasury certainly undermines the proposal put forward by the SDLP in the motion. We can support the wording of the Sinn Féin amendment, but we will not support the SDLP motion nor the Alliance Party amendment.

Mr Burrows: It is a basic responsibility of any credible Government to have a Budget. It is disappointing that one has not been agreed. There have been too many years of stop-start Government and single-year settlements, and we badly need a multi-year Budget.

We are still the only Administration that is underfunded. Wales and Scotland are funded at least at their need, but we are not. We should be funded at around 128%, if we look at the best figures. It is imperative that we continue to negotiate hard with the UK Government and get the settlement that the people of Northern Ireland deserve in order to have sustainable public services. We in the Ulster Unionist Party will continue to negotiate, and I am pleased that the Government have moved — not far enough yet — to offer roughly £1·5 billion. However, we have to accept that this place lacks credibility when we look the Secretary of State or anyone in the UK Treasury in the eye. We have failed to upgrade and optimise our Assembly in its institution and operation. We have continued to waste money. We have continued to fail to deal with transformation. We have continued to fail to deal with waste as regards changing things such as procurement. Vast sums of money go down the drain. Too often, we are penny wise and pound foolish. As much as we need to press the Government to give us the appropriate funding settlement, we have to look in the mirror and accept that we are part of the problem as well.

There is a good case for saying that Northern Ireland has particular problems because of the legacy of the past. There are histories of mental health issues and trauma, victims and all kinds of litigation. We have a divided society. Were we starting with a fresh piece of paper, we would not design the delivery of public services in the way that it is, but we are where we are, and it will be a long time before we address the underlying issues. Therefore, we need that additional support. We need pay parity. It is simply not acceptable that we face uncertainty, meaning that our front-line workers may not get their pay awards and may have to consider going on strike.

I come back to this point, however: the First Minister is in Cardiff today, signing the manifesto of Plaid Cymru and the SNP. Even if no public funds were used to pay for that trip — I asked a question for priority written answer today to that effect — there is an opportunity cost, because Ms O'Neill is paid by the taxpayer. She should be here, not away on a party political stunt. It goes to the very essence of our problems that someone who is paid a wage to be here and deal with the issues in Northern Ireland is signing the manifesto commitments of two other separatist leaders. It shows where the priorities are all wrong.

In essence, let me say this: the SDLP is right to raise issues about how dysfunctional this place is and how much waste there is. I get that the Opposition should have motions on Opposition day, but look at the vast waste of money that this place spends on other kinds of motions that are tabled by all parties, because they are there to bring them. There is hour after hour of fanfare for non-binding motions on all manner of things, with Hansard staff typing away, Ministers being brought away from their day job and MLAs sitting here despite the fact that they could be doing all kinds of other things. They then go out and say, "We agreed a motion", and the public, who pay our wages, think for a moment, "Oh, will something change?". The answer is no. It is a sixth-form debating society, albeit a rather grand and nice one. What a waste of time and money.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way. At the Business Committee meeting last week, we proposed that the Tree Protection Bill be debated next Monday, but his party colleague said, "No, we have a non-binding motion slot". Which is it? Do you prefer non-binding motions or legislation?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): We are moving away from the Budget. I appeal to Members that we return to it.

Mr Burrows: Let us be quite clear. Non-binding motions are here, and we will use our fair share of them for the most appropriate things. By the way, that is a non-binding motion on aversive training tools. The Alliance Party, through its Justice Ministry, could have banned those tools, but, no, it has not done so, meaning that dogs can get electric shock therapy —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Can we return to the motion on the Budget?

Mr Burrows: Yes. It does not cover that.

Here is the reality: we use those motions, but they are a waste of time. We need to negotiate hard with the UK Government, get a multi-year Budget and move this place on to fixing things. We must stop paying for pothole repairs and, instead, start putting down proper road surfaces the first time. We need to stop being penny wise and pound foolish so that we can look the Government in the eye and say that, if they give us that money, we will spend it wisely and reform our Government. Therefore, I agree, in essence, with what the SDLP is trying to do, but, of course, it will make no difference because it is a non-binding motion.

Ms Forsythe: The Budget is such an important issue. Matthew O'Toole is the Chair of the Finance Committee, and we all work very well at Committee together. He very much knows the detail of what is going on, but, obviously, in the Chamber, he has a role to play, and he is in character, making angry attacks upon others. That is shining through once again.

Earlier today in the Chamber, he mentioned the Streisand effect, which is when attempting to hide or cover up things sometimes backfires. Perhaps we can see the SDLP's response to elements of the Budget in the same frame, because the notion of criticising everything but offering nothing serves nobody.

Earlier this year, when John O'Dowd brought forward the draft Budget, which Sinn Féin supported at the time, the DUP held firm. We were out quickly. The Education Minister very quickly set out what it would mean. The Budget was inadequate for special educational needs; it could lead to the redundancies of 6,700 teachers and some 3,100 non-teaching staff; it did not prioritise social housing; and it had no money for the anti-poverty strategy. For the Department of Justice, by the end of the multi-year period, it would equate to the combined annual budgets of the Prison Service, the Probation Board, the Youth Justice Agency and Forensic Science Northern Ireland being cut. It was a Budget that we could not support, and we held firm. As we moved forward, the Executive agreed collectively that they could not operate within it. It was the right thing to do to push back on the issue of funding, because we need to secure the right package for Northern Ireland. It needs to be a right, fair, equitable and sustainable long-term funding settlement that enables us to deliver public services while working to transform them rather than one of the repeated cash-cow sticking plasters that are used to cover up the shortfall.

Much has been said about the fact that Wales and Scotland are funded well beyond their need while Northern Ireland is funded to its need. An important point is often missed, however. When it is reported that Northern Ireland is funded to its level of need, that includes the retrospective cash-cow sticking plasters. Northern Ireland is not funded to its need in a way that means that we know what is coming over the next three to four years to enable us to plan and spend on public services. We need a proper, sensible solution. Ultimately, that is what we hope to get.

Matthew O'Toole talked about the responses from the different groups that have fed back to him. Well, many of the rest of us got those responses from groups earlier in the year. When the draft Budget came out, we got them immediately from people whom we engaged with. Mr O'Toole talked about adult art classes and people in the voluntary and community sector. Yes, they cannot move forward because the Budget is not in place, but, if the Budget had been imposed with £1·5 billion of cuts, all those things would certainly have been cut long before now. Those decisions would have been made immediately. The arm's-length bodies, the community and voluntary sector and some of the most vulnerable in society would have been hit hard and would have continued to be hit by the Budget. It is the right thing to do to get a Budget that works for people.

As I said, the Opposition criticise that position and criticise where we are but offer nothing. I have not seen a shadow proposal for a draft Budget come through from the Opposition. Perhaps I missed it. I would love to know what their proposal would be for a Budget under the current terms. During the talks in December 2023, the DUP leader, Gavin Robinson, highlighted the fact that there would be a cliff edge. We approached the cliff edge, and in October 2025 he was out again. Talks took place this year, and they are ongoing. We have recognised the need for long-term, sustainable and fair funding for Northern Ireland, and we will continue to push for that.

We will support Sinn Féin's amendment today. We need to have a Budget in place in Northern Ireland. I know that, and I agree with the Opposition's sentiment, but it must be a Budget that our public services can be delivered within, is not catastrophic for the people of Northern Ireland and does not decimate our public services and drive people out of work. People in Northern Ireland are struggling. The DUP has held firm on its position on this and will continue to do so.

Mr Gaston: The most basic duty of any Government is to agree a Budget. Any serious Government will also need to set a tax rate, but thankfully, in Northern Ireland, we are spared the Northern Ireland Executive's having fiscal powers at their fingertips and the devastation that that would cause to people here. The Executive parties spent last week on our TV screens saying what they did not want, but I never once heard any of them come forward with a formula for managing their budgets and living within their means. We are funded to the Treasury's definition of need. What I want to know today from the Opposition or some of the Executive parties is this: what is the uplift that you crave? What is the uplift that would cover your bloated Civil Service and pet projects each year? The fact that this place cannot even slice up the cake that it gets from Westminster is a testament to the failure of Belfast Agreement devolution.

Of course, the truth is that Sinn Féin can never have enough money, because that would go against its united Ireland fantasy and defeat its argument that the UK does not work. A Stormont headed by Sinn Féin will always have that 'Oliver Twist' mentality of asking for more, regardless of how generous London is. However, there is a case to be made to His Majesty's Treasury. The basic point that needs to be hammered home is that, for two years, Northern Ireland was not funded to the Holtham definition of need. Our Secretary of State knows that. As a Welsh MP, he is well aware that Holtham was applied to the Welsh budget after years of campaigning. He has the advantage of being able to blame the historical shortfall on the Tory Administration that preceded his time in office. I have a suggestion for our Secretary of State as he does so: why does he not get on with the job and set the Budget that the Executive cannot? He should not give money to individual pet projects; rather, he should allocate money to the different Departments and then, if he must, let this place get on with it. I say this to the House, including all those who sit in the Executive: when you look at the waste for which they are responsible — there is no greater example of that than the £200 million on the A5 — you see that Stormont is no great advert for devolution.

My final piece of advice to the Secretary of State is that he could find an additional £500 million by simply abolishing the Irish Sea border. That colossal waste of money is scandalous, yet it is supported by those who brought the motion to the House today.

There is a need because, for a number of years, we were not funded to the definition of need. There is a case to be made in that regard. However, given the examples of waste and the legacy that this place has, it is no wonder that the Secretary of State is reluctant to provide any more money to be wasted here in Stormont.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, the next item of business in the Order Paper is Question Time. This debate will continue following Question Time, when the next Member to be called to speak will be the Minister of Finance to respond to the debate. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Question 11 has been withdrawn.

Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): Earlier this year, I met the Minister for Infrastructure and NI Water, and we are meeting again tomorrow to discuss water and waste water infrastructure and NI Water's proposals to address issues that constrain economic development here. Together, working with industry, we are exploring ways in which we can apply innovative solutions, while continuing to press the British Government for a fair and sustainable funding settlement, the absence of which, over many years, has led to the degradation of our waste water infrastructure. I know that my Executive colleague the Infrastructure Minister is working hard, within financial constraints, to improve waste water infrastructure and the planning system and that she regularly engages with Executive colleagues to advocate for an increase in waste water investment to modernise our ageing waste water system in order to facilitate housing growth and economic development.

Ms K Armstrong: Newtownards is the largest town in my constituency of Strangford and has the most economic impact in the area. It is in a closed capture area, however. What action is the Minister for the Economy's Department taking to support businesses that have been negatively affected by waste water infrastructure, where that has created barriers to economic growth and investment and led to two businesses in my constituency potentially closing?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. She has corresponded with me previously on issues to do with the waste water infrastructure in Newtownards. As an Executive, we are collectively focused on the issue and are working with NI Water. The Infrastructure Minister has lead responsibility for that and has been trying to identify ways in which to free up capacity and to target investment at where it will have the most impact. We continue to work alongside Invest NI as we try to support businesses to navigate the system. We all agree that more needs to be done on investment, freeing up capacity and allowing economic development to take place. I am happy to take up with the Infrastructure Minister the issues that the Member has highlighted, and we are working together to try to find a way forward.

Mr Martin: Minister, the Construction Employers Federation (CEF) has recently stated that over 6,000 homes cannot currently be built in Northern Ireland. The Wastewater Infrastructure Group (WIG) reports that, if constraints continue, Northern Ireland's economy, based on GVA, will be a quarter of a billion pounds smaller over the next three years. How concerned are you about the figures that I have just presented to you? Are you content with your party colleague the Minister for Infrastructure's three-pronged approach, which you referenced, given that the industry has called it wholly inadequate?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. As I said, the Executive as a whole have a focus on the need to invest in our waste water infrastructure. We do consider it a constraint to building houses, to which he referred, and to economic development. We are therefore focused on that. I support the Infrastructure Minister's three-pronged approach. She has set out, as her predecessor did, an approach that will help unlock capacity and deal with the water that is going into the system in the first place. There are challenges at both ends. We need to look at how we can do things more innovatively, and the Infrastructure Minister and I, along with NI Water and Invest NI, are currently working on doing that. We are looking to see whether there are things that we can do to support business in order to free up capacity. I assure the Member that we have a focus on the issue and that the Executive as a whole have a focus on it.

Mr McGlone: Minister, can you tell us whether Invest NI records every investment opportunity that is lost owing to planning delays or waste water constraints? If it does not, how can your Department claim to understand and measure the true economic cost of those failures?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. I am not sure that there is a dataset that captures what he set out. When businesses and investors make decisions, they make them based on a range of measures, so, of course, Invest will interrogate the various issues that any investor identifies, and it will have a record of that. I am happy to correspond with the Member on the detail of how that information is captured and the exact dataset that Invest NI captures. The chief executive of Invest NI has identified some of the constraints, with which we are all very familiar, as a challenge. Certainly, I have been working with him, as I have with my Executive colleagues, to try to find a way forward. The Infrastructure Minister and I are putting a focus on what more we can do from an innovative perspective to try to free up capacity, allow economic development to take place and, importantly, allow houses to be built.

Mr Gaston: Minister, planning red tape is one of the biggest obstacles to growing our local economy. Devolving planning powers to councils in 2015 moved us from having one set of policies governing planning to having 11 localised plans. Any reform of planning must ensure a return to one set of Northern Ireland-wide policies. Has the Minister considered the impact that having multiple planning policies is having on attracting foreign direct investment or allowing our local businesses to grow?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister, you are not responsible for planning. You can answer that question whatever way you feel.

Dr Archibald: Thank you, a Phriomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I have been fairly generous in not pushing back at Members in relation to who has responsibility for these particular areas, because I very much recognise the cross-cutting impact that planning and waste water infrastructure have on the local economy. I assure the Member that I have engaged regularly with my colleague the Infrastructure Minister, who does have a particular focus on the planning improvement plan, to address some of the challenges — with which we will all be familiar through our constituency offices — when it comes to businesses seeking to invest, develop and grow. It is important to recognise that, over the past couple of years, there have been improvements in the time taken for planning applications. We work on that across Departments, as well as across agencies with different responsibilities. We will continue to place a focus on it, because we all want to achieve the same outcome.

Dr Archibald: With your permission, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle,

I will answer questions 2 and 9 together.

I have engaged with the Minister of Education on a range of issues relating to learner pathways, curriculum reform and participation in education and training. While officials from my Department and the Department of Education engage regularly, engagement on the draft framework has been limited to date. The Department of Education is consulting on the draft framework, and my officials are working with the further education sector to help inform my Department's response.

I am aware of, and share, some of the concerns expressed by teachers, parents and students regarding aspects of the TransformED agenda. Those concerns warrant careful consideration. I support efforts to encourage young people to remain engaged in education, skills and training. However, significant questions remain regarding the practical implementation and enforceability of proposals to extend participation to age 18. Further work by the Department of Education is required before implementation can be considered.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for that answer. A lot of concerns are being raised about the distinct shift in the draft curriculum framework from a curriculum that is focused on skills to one that is very much focused on a knowledge-rich approach. Given your responsibilities around the skills agenda, how will you continue to engage with the Education Minister to ensure that our young people leave the education system not just having received knowledge but equipped with the skills that they need to go out and contribute to the economy and workplace?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. My officials will continue to engage with Department of Education officials on that wider piece of work. Although we have not been involved directly in developing the proposals, I and my Department have a focus on ensuring that we have the skills that meet the needs of the economy now and in the future. It is important that what we are doing in my Department and the Department of Education is joined up across government and also across the community and voluntary sector. I will continue to keep a close eye on that as it progresses, and my officials will continue to work with their colleagues in the Department of Education.

Mrs Guy: Minister, my question relates to the proposed legislation, which would mean young people staying in employment, education and training until the age of 18. That will require the right pathways and opportunities being available to all those young people. Are you confident that the infrastructure is in place?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I have engaged directly with the Education Minister on the legislation, and my officials have engaged with their colleagues. As I said, I support the principle. I want young people to stay in education or training, but, as the Member said, it has to be the right pathway for the young person. Having the structures and frameworks in place is one thing, but we need to be able to fund them, and we are facing particular challenges.

We are actually doing really well when it comes to engaging young people in training pathways, and we have seen significant increases in the number of young people taking up traineeships and apprenticeships. That is hugely welcome but comes with additional costs, and we have to make sure that we properly resource whatever we put in place. I have emphasised that in my engagement with the Education Minister, and I will continue to engage with him as this progresses.

Mr Delargy: Minister, I appreciate that you have already answered this question in part, but how will curriculum 2028 affect learners going into further education?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. In the type of qualifications that young people obtain, the subjects that they study and ensuring that a range of pathways is available, it is important that the curriculum, as it develops, recognises the value not only of academic pathways but of technical and vocational pathways, that there are pathways for everybody, regardless of their ability, and that there is support for young people, in particular young people with special educational needs. We need to plan for transitions and ensure that there is suitable flexibility so that learners can progress from academic pathways into further education or employment opportunities with suitable support. As I said, we will continue to engage with the Education Minister on that, and it is important that any revised curriculum framework supports the pathways in further education as well.

Ms Brownlee: Does the Minister agree that, by ensuring that the curriculum matches the needs of the economy, the Education Minister is doing the right thing?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. As I said, it is about making sure that we are meeting the needs of all learners. We will continue to engage with the Education Minister. I think that we share the aspiration that what we teach young people, in school or further or higher education, meets the needs of the economy in not just the here and now but in the future as well. We are equipping them with the appropriate digital skills and other skills that they require, which will support us in developing the economy but also in developing the type of society that we want. Education is not just about the economy, of course. It is about opening minds and raising aspirations, which is important, and we need to capture that in the curriculum.

Dr Archibald: Ensuring that electricity grid capacity does not act as a barrier to economic investment is a priority for me and my Department. Through the grid development monitoring group, my Department brings together key stakeholders to drive progress on strategic transmission and distribution projects and to identify barriers to delivery. In addition, my Department is working closely with NIE Networks, the System Operator for Northern Ireland (SONI) and the Utility Regulator to support major network investment, including the £2·27 billion RP7 programme to increase network capacity and resilience. I have also introduced reforms to electricity connection charging arrangements, making it fairer and more affordable for homes and businesses to connect to the network. Together, those actions will help ensure that the electricity network can support business investment, economic growth and job creation across the North.

Mr Honeyford: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. ABO Energy is a major European renewables company with headquarters in my constituency of Lagan Valley. It has £1·1 billion of investment to come here but cannot realise it, half because of constraints on the grid. That is not just an energy problem; it is a problem for our economy. Does the Minister agree that it is one thing to have meetings and talk to all the stakeholders, but it is her Department's responsibility to produce a plan for moving forward that gives the outworking of how NIE Networks, SONI and the Utility Regulator will realise that, in much the same way as the Department for Infrastructure —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: OK. Thank you, David.

Mr Honeyford: — would do for roads?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question and for his considerable interest in energy policy, which I really do appreciate. We have discussed the issue on a number of occasions. Later in the year, I will publish the energy strategy policy statement, which will set out the key milestones for delivery to 2030. The statement will recognise that we need to be smarter and have a stronger and more flexible electricity grid for the exact reasons that the Member has laid out: supporting economic growth, attracting investment and increasing our renewable electricity generation. We will look at how the various pieces of work by the stakeholders across the energy system fit together, because alignment is important to achieve the outcomes that we are all collectively trying for.

Mr Kearney: Minister, businesses in rural areas already have to contend with many more obstacles than businesses in urban areas. How will you ensure that rural businesses specifically are not disadvantaged when seeking grid connections?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. One of the key reasons why we took the decision that we did on connection charging policy was to address the unfairnesses in the existing system, particularly for rural businesses, which often faced much greater costs. Under the previous arrangements, customers in areas where the grid was weaker could face significantly higher costs where reinforcement of the wider network was required. The new arrangements that are now in place spread those costs more fairly across the customer base and make it easier and more affordable for homes and businesses, particularly in rural areas, to connect to the grid. They help remove that unfair geographic penalty and deliver greater fairness regardless of location. As I said, that is particularly important for making a more level playing field for rural businesses. We have had positive feedback, but obviously it takes time to see the impact of some of the changes. The investment by NIE Networks in the grid will play an important part in addressing some of the challenges that we face.

Mr Harvey: Minister, when do you intend to publish the long-duration energy storage policy?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. We will publish the storage policy before the end of the year. I cannot give a firm date — I will check with officials — but it is being finalised, and we will publish it before the end of the calendar year.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Doug Beattie is not in his place.

Dr Archibald: Ulster University has announced the commencement of a process inviting applications under a voluntary redundancy scheme. Ulster University is an autonomous institution, and decisions relating to staffing are a matter for it. My Department continues to engage with the university on the issue. I encourage the university to continue its constructive engagement with trade unions, and I hope that any compulsory redundancies will be avoided.

It is still too early in the process to fully assess or quantify the impact on any individual campus, including the north Belfast campus. I recognise that this will be a worrying and uncertain time for staff. I remain committed to securing a sustainable future for our higher education sector. That is why, along with my Executive colleagues, I have consistently highlighted the unsustainable nature of our current funding arrangements and continue to press the British Government for a fair and sustainable funding settlement that protects public services and supports economic development, including investment in higher education.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister. I appreciate that it may be too early to assess the impact, given that we do not yet know whether there will be compulsory redundancies.

It has been acknowledged and reported that the higher education funding review has lost the confidence of some of the key stakeholders. Minister, will you commit to a reset in those relations so that we can progress that review?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. The first stage of the higher education funding review was an independent financial needs assessment of the different higher education institutions. That was completed, and a summary report was published earlier in the year. Officials are engaging with the sector on the next steps for the wider review, and I expect proposals to be brought to me very shortly. In the meantime, I have taken some steps to try to support the sector where possible. I know that the Member will appreciate the challenges in trying to achieve that in the current budgetary context. We have allocated some additional funding to St Mary's University College and Stranmillis University College in recognition of the challenges facing them as small institutions. The Department also commissioned specific work on Ulster University's multi-campus model, and that has been completed.

Despite the budgetary challenges that we face, we have sought to prioritise funding for skills and specifically for our further and higher education institutions. Over the past couple of years, we have been successful in advocating for additional in-year funding. That is not a replacement for having a sustainable baseline for our further and higher education institutions, which is what I, personally, am working to achieve in the context of the current Budget negotiations. Work is ongoing with our higher education institutions on how we take forward the higher education funding review. It is important work, and we need to ensure that we have the budgetary capacity behind it.

Ms Hunter: Minister, given that we share a constituency, you will know that many of our constituents are staff or students who feel that they are paying the price for years of underfunding in higher education. Will you expand on the urgent discussions that you have had with Ulster University to protect jobs and safeguard teaching and research and with those impacted on to ensure that campuses outside Belfast and in our constituency are not disproportionately affected?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. As I said to Miss McAllister, my top priority in the ongoing Budget negotiations is to achieve additional funding so that we can invest in our further and higher education institutions. As skills, which include further and higher education, make up 75% of my budget, we invest significantly in our institutions, including our higher education institutions, but it has been a challenge over recent years.

Between 2016-17 and 2024-25, the Executive's Budget as a whole increased by 58%. The budget for my Department in that time increased by only 1%. That is because of the investment that we have made in Health and Education, but it has had an impact on other Departments and made it really challenging to keep up with the inflationary costs that we are experiencing. I want to invest more in our further and higher education system. It is worth noting, however, that, of the two campuses outside Belfast, Magee has seen a 22% increase in student numbers since the Executive returned, and Coleraine has seen a 12% increase in student numbers since the Executive returned. We see good progress, but I recognise that we have more to do and that we need to stabilise our higher education funding system.

Mr Carroll: A few months ago, in this Building, I hosted a delegation of Unite, UNISON and University and College Union (UCU) workers who outlined their concerns about job losses at Ulster University. There was also a huge concern about the impact of job losses, compulsory and voluntary, on students and workers. Minister, have you or your officials raised those concerns and objections to the job cuts directly with the university?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. Likewise, I have met the unions that represent workers at Ulster University, and I have continued to engage with the trade unions and the university. There are particular financial challenges that face our universities, and that is why we continue to engage to try to get a better funding settlement for the Executive as a whole. I will seek to get my fair share of any settlement as part of the Budget negotiations because we need to rebalance what we invest in our economy and our further and higher education system. It is important that that is reflected in the time ahead, because we want to ensure that our institutions are sustainable and that our young people get a good experience in college. We need to invest, and I recognise that that has been a challenge in recent years.

Mr Boggs: I commend the measures that the Minister has already taken to better support our universities right across the North. In previous answers, she mentioned the proposed redundancies. Does the Minister agree that it demonstrates that more funding is required? Will she reconfirm her commitment to making that case?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. Yes, I certainly agree that it is clear that more funding is required. The proposed redundancies very much highlight the financial pressures that face our universities. It creates challenges for the institutions and for the staff and students. As I said to other Members, it underscores the importance of the Executive securing a fair funding settlement that enables us to invest in our public services, including higher education institutions. My Department, as I have reflected, like all Departments, faces an extremely challenging financial situation. There have been difficult decisions to make and things to do as we navigate the current situation. In that context, we have also been able to do some good things that I have already mentioned. However, working alongside my Executive colleagues, I will continue to make the case for a better and fairer funding settlement for the Executive and, as I said, for my fair share of it for my Department.

Mr Nesbitt: Minister, has there been an assessment of the impact of the job losses on the number of courses being offered at third level? What is the potential consequential impact on the economy of fewer courses?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member. As I have mentioned in previous answers to Members, we do not yet have the full details of the impact of the redundancies and where exactly they might have an impact specifically. Therefore, it has not been possible thus far to determine any potential impacts on courses or qualifications. Obviously, it is for the institutions to determine how they organise and deploy their resources and what they offer. It is important, however, for the Economy Committee and the Department to have a view of and to oversee that, because, as discussed, it is important that we ensure that the skills and qualifications that people leave our universities with meet the needs of our economy and society more widely. We will continue to work with the universities on that, in the time ahead, as we navigate the challenges of our finances, while making the case for additional funding to better invest in our further and higher education system.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Áine Murphy. Minister, you have less than a minute.

Dr Archibald: Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann 2026 was a landmark event, bringing together communities to celebrate Irish music, language and culture. I was pleased to be able to support it with an additional £1 million this year. It strengthened our international profile, supported local businesses, encouraged future tourism and created a lasting legacy.

The success of the 2026 fleadh was built upon close partnership working. Belfast City Council, Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann, Tourism NI and many others worked closely together to deliver a successful, inclusive and safe event. It was projected to attract more than 700,000 visitors, with almost 40% coming from outside the North, and it is estimated that it will exceed the original estimate of £54 million in direct economic benefit.

Tourism NI is working closely with Belfast City Council to assess the impact of the fleadh, and initial indicators are extremely positive. Recent statistics show record sales in hotels across the North for July, as the fleadh approached. Belfast City Council's initial economic impact report should be available before the end of the year, and I look forward to sharing the findings once that work has been completed.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry, Áine, but time has run out. We will now move on to topical questions.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. It is unfortunate that we are in the position that we are in with the Bill and that it continues to be stuck in the Executive. That achieves nothing other than to obstruct the open, transparent consideration of important legislation.

I reject the Member's characterisation of the process. A very strong consultation and engagement process led to the Bill being drafted in its current form. I believe that it strikes the right balance between delivering for workers and businesses. People will have their own view of that, but it would be much better if they were able to express it with the Bill having been published and progressing through the Assembly.

It is important to stress that the Bill is not focused solely on workers' rights. Rather, it is about trying to deliver a more balanced economy, while recognising the needs of businesses, workers and the broader economy. I have continued to work with Executive colleagues and others, including the business sector and trade unions, while the draft Bill has been with the Executive. We have since made some tweaks to it, and we will continue to engage as constructively as we possibly can in the time ahead. The Member will appreciate that there is a short time left in this mandate in which to introduce the Bill, but, from my perspective, there is still time for it to come to the Assembly.

Ms McLaughlin: Minister, the public spat between you and the business community has been unedifying. A part of political leadership is finding consensus in difficult situations, yet the delayed 'good jobs' Bill did not reach the Executive until April. In the meantime, workers across the North have fallen even further behind their counterparts in Britain. Employment rights here —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Question.

Ms McLaughlin: — are not moving forward. Do you regret taking so long to bring the draft Bill to the Executive, and do you regret the fact that the delays could set workers' rights back years?

Dr Archibald: I reject the characterisation that there has been a spat between me and the business community. That is not true. We have a difference of opinion on particular elements of the Bill. I work really closely with the business community on many issues. I work constructively and positively with it on many things and have achieved a considerable amount by doing so.

Let me knock on the head the Member's point about the time taken for the Bill to come to the Executive. A proper process had to be undertaken. We are in a shortened mandate. Legislation has to be consulted on and drafted. If I were to bring forward legislation that had not been properly consulted on, I would be criticised for rushing the process. The legislation has not been rushed. Rather, it has been carefully balanced in its consideration of the issues. It has been constructed through partnership working with the various partners involved, including trade unions and businesses. What has come out the other end is better for the time that was taken to get it to this point. The unfortunate reality is that our shortened mandate means that we have more compressed timelines. As I have said repeatedly, however, there is plenty of time for the Bill, like a number of other Bills that have recently been introduced, to be considered and progress through the Assembly before the end of the mandate.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. Regional balance is one of my Department's four priorities. We have done considerable work to advance regional balance within the mandate. The key plank of that has been the subregional economic plan, which saw the formation of local economic partnerships (LEPs) across all 11 council areas. All the LEPs have now got their action plans in place and are starting to deliver their programmes.

At a higher level, we have the city and growth deals that are progressing across the four particular areas. They are at different stages of delivery, but we are beginning to see their benefits rolling out, particularly in the Belfast region city deal and the Derry and Strabane District Council city deal, where the DNA Museum is at an advanced stage of construction. Those are important elements in progressing our regional balance.

There are other pieces of work, including the tourism vision and action plan and the social enterprise action plan, where we have particular sectors of our economy that are really strongly distributed across the region, and we seek to build upon that. I am under no illusions, however, that regional balance is a long-term project to redress the imbalances that have been caused by decades of underinvestment outside greater Belfast, and that it will take time for us to see other areas uplifted. We have already begun to deliver on that progress.

Mr Nesbitt: The Minister is aware of the economic benefit of clustering. Clustering and regional balance are not mutually exclusive. How does the Minister see them gelling together to best effect?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. We have been developing a policy on clustering with Invest NI. There has been a significant focus on certain clusters in particular. The Minister — the Member will be aware from his time as Health Minister of the health and life sciences cluster the Health Innovation Research Alliance (HIRANI), which is probably one of our most well developed clusters. We also have a very well developed advanced manufacturing cluster.

We are seeing further progress across different clustering areas through the Shared Island enterprise fund. There is also a focus on all-island clusters and how we can develop those across the island to support the strengthening of businesses, north and south. They bring together industry, academia and various public bodies. They are collectively stronger than the sum of their parts and can see real benefit from clustering. Clustering can be either geographical or sectoral and pertain to different business types. There are opportunities to grow different sectors of the economy and to focus on that at a regional level. As I said, investment is being made into that by Invest NI and also through the Shared Island Fund. It is an area of work that will continue to progress and deliver good results.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for that question. She will be aware — as, I know, all Members will be — of some of the particular challenges that face our hospitality and tourism sectors, not least of which is, of course, the VAT differentials that are now in place across the island and have widened over the course of recent months. We have collectively been making the case around that, and I and the Finance Minister have been engaging with Treasury in support of Hospitality Ulster and other bodies that have been leading that campaign. I think that there is a really strong case for what we are proposing. I know that it has the support of hospitality businesses across Britain, and the British Government should pursue that. I have raised that with the new Secretary of State. I have also made the case that we need to look at what other things the British Government can do to support our hospitality sector, because, at the end of the day, they hold the levers that will have the most impact.

From my perspective, one thing that I can do to support the hospitality and tourism sector is invest in skills. We have been working with the hospitality sector on a skills plan for hospitality, and we are looking at other measures such as, for example, the aviation policy, which is another one that will help support our tourism sector. We also have the tourism vision and action plan, in which the aviation policy is one of the actions. We have a number of pieces of work that, collectively, are designed to support our tourism and hospitality sector, but, as I say, if we could all keep the focus on the VAT ask, that could be a shared priority that could potentially deliver for our hospitality businesses.

Ms Brownlee: Thank you, Minister, for that response. You will be aware of the recent closure of the historic Dobbins Inn in Carrickfergus; I have written to your Department about it. That is a major blow to Carrickfergus town centre, and it will have a ripple effect on city deals or further down the line. Therefore, Minister, what can you and your Department do to support businesses like Dobbins Inn that fear closure? Can you intervene and support them, or, in the case of closure, how can you negotiate and support other interested parties to allow businesses like that to continue and town centres to thrive?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. As she indicated, she has written to the Department about that business. I always encourage businesses to engage with either Invest NI or their local council on what support might be available and what might be most appropriate. I am always happy to engage and to facilitate any engagement. Obviously, it has been a very challenging time for businesses, which are facing inflationary pressures across the board, and there are significant challenges when it comes to cost pressures, many of which are, unfortunately, beyond our control. Through the local economic partnerships in particular, we are trying to ensure that we have the local conditions that will support businesses. There may be some streams of support coming through those that could also be beneficial to businesses.

Dr Archibald: Let me see if I have that information in front of me. I am not sure that I have the figures, but I am happy to write to the Member about the specifics.
The capital funding that was available through the local growth fund in the last financial year was quite small. For this financial year, my Department has received £13·29 million, and we have announced what some of that will support. Some of it will go to Invest NI, with £7·1 million to support innovation and R&D and, in particular, to support the development, design and feasibility work for the Mandeville site in Craigavon. There is £1·7 million going towards Go Succeed, and I am sure that the Member will be familiar with that from his constituency. That programme has been key in supporting businesses. That is specifically regarding capital grants, and the Member will be aware of the challenges that we have faced with the local growth fund and the split between resource and capital, which has been far from ideal. Projects are currently being developed, and I encourage Members, as well as businesses in their constituencies, to engage with Invest in that process.