Official Report: Tuesday 13 October 2026

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: If Members wish to be called to make a statement, they should indicate by rising in their place. Members who are called will have up to three minutes to make their statement. 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.

Mr Boggs: This week is Community Transport Week. As a representative of the rural constituency of West Tyrone, I know just how much of a lifeline community transport is for so many people. Community transport organisations such as Easilink, which serves the greater Strabane and Omagh areas in my constituency, provide an essential service to ensure that people are connected with their local towns and health services. Easilink's dial-a-lift service, its rural links to health service and its disability action transport scheme are second to none, and users of them, many of whom I have spoken to, could not be without them.

Supporting community transport has been a priority for successive Sinn Féin Ministers for Infrastructure. Our commitment to improving services was further backed up yesterday, when Minister Liz Kimmins announced an investment of £1 million in community transport providers. That funding will enable each of the 13 providers in the North to purchase a new minibus as they work towards replacing their ever-ageing fleet.

Whether it is helping people who live in isolated rural areas or older people without access to a car, community transport plays a crucial role in keeping people connected, independent and socially active. I therefore welcome the Minister's support for community transport providers and the many people who rely on them as a lifeline. As we work towards a better connected society with improved transport links, community transport organisations have an even bigger role to play. I look forward to working with them and the Minister to ensure that they are supported to play their part in the time ahead.

Mr Harvey: Today, I mark Baby Loss Awareness Week 2026, which takes place from 9 October to 15 October, by remembering the many babies whose lives were tragically cut short and standing alongside the families who continue to carry their loss.

Baby loss affects far more people than we may realise.

We all know someone who has been affected by baby loss, whether that is a family member, a friend, a colleague, a neighbour or a constituent. Despite how common it is, the grief that follows pregnancy and baby loss is often experienced in silence.

For parents, the experience of losing a baby does not simply disappear with time but can remain with them throughout their lives. Anniversaries of due dates and other milestones can bring those emotions back with enormous force. That is why awareness matters. Baby Loss Awareness Week provides an opportunity for us to remember, to listen and to ensure that families know that they are not alone. It also gives us an opportunity to recognise the incredible work of charities, healthcare professionals, bereavement services and support groups that walk alongside families during some of the most difficult moments imaginable. In Northern Ireland, we have seen important progress on recognising the experiences of bereaved families, including through the introduction of baby loss certificates. As elected representatives, we have a responsibility to listen to those families, to understand their experiences and to continue to support improvements in care, recognition and bereavement services.

The Wave of Light event will happen on 15 October at 7.00 pm. I encourage everyone across Northern Ireland to light a candle at 7.00 pm on 15 October in memory of every baby who died too soon. By doing so, we will join families and communities across the world in creating a wave of light — a simple but powerful symbol of remembrance, love and solidarity. For some, that candle will represent a baby they held in their arms; for others, it will represent a baby they never had the opportunity to meet; for many, it will represent a child who will always be part of their family. Whatever the circumstances, every loss matters, every baby is remembered and every family deserves compassion and support. This Baby Loss Awareness Week, let us continue to break the silence, remember the babies we have lost —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Harry.

Mr Harvey: — support those who are grieving and remind every bereaved parent that they are not alone. Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Harry.

Mr Honeyford: This morning, the UK Government announced better regulation of the home heating oil sector. I welcome that. It is vital in Northern Ireland — more so than anywhere else in the UK. A third of the 1·5 million households that depend on oil are based in Northern Ireland, yet we will end up with weaker protection because that regulation will not apply to us.

Consumers have seen oil prices double. The Utility Regulator (Support for Decarbonisation Preparation) Bill is going through the Assembly. We cannot let that Bill pass without strengthening it to include home heating oil: not to do so would be a massive missed opportunity for the Department for the Economy and the House. I have been working on an amendment to the Bill.

We are talking about decarbonisation, with which I totally agree and support. However, decarbonisation cannot be done without home heating oil being brought into it, given that 60% of our consumers use home heating oil as their heating source. Our people have seen the price of oil more than double today, but it has to be about more than today; the protections have got to be for the longer term. The Competition and Markets Authority has said clearly that our oil consumers do not have the protections that gas and electricity consumers do. We do not even have a system by which to identify the customers who are using home heating oil. How can we seriously talk about decarbonisation if we do not understand who is dependent on oil?

We need better protections, today. We need better information and transparency and proper protection for vulnerable customers, and we need to help them move away from home heating oil and fossil fuels. The fact that two thirds of our consumers need to be protected needs to be addressed in the Utility Regulator Bill. To not do so would be a missed opportunity for the House. Our consumers need protection. Northern Ireland cannot be left behind.

Mr Burrows: The past couple of weeks in Northern Ireland have been toxic and polarising in our politics and for our communities. Many people are bewildered at the fire in the bellies of those who can raise real passion when discussing and debating crisis and confrontation but do not have the same passion when it comes to dealing with the intractable issues facing our communities, such as trying to secure an appointment with your GP, trying to get a place for your child at school or fixing our waste water system so that businesses that currently cannot expand can do so.

I appeal to all leaders, whatever our disagreements over Drumcree and how it has been handled, to confine the parade dispute to that one. I have heard people on both sides say, "Bring it on" to expanding parade disputes across Northern Ireland: that is absolute folly for everyone in Northern Ireland, including those who are part of the parading community. Unionism has to strategise its way through the issues, and that has to involve looking beyond the next angry speech or confrontation.

I appeal to the Protestant/unionist/loyalist community, particularly those who parade — from the Orange Order to our bands — not to succumb to the temptation to take part in unnotified processions. I have had people who are eminently reasonable ring me and say, "Why should we do this if not complying with the law doesn't have a consequence?". I appeal to them to do the right thing and obey the law. I have seen the real-life consequences for people who do such things. They often come to see you months or years later when they have a criminal record, when their credit history is affected, when they have been disciplined at their work, when they cannot access work or when they cannot go on a family holiday to America because of a conviction that they got for doing something illegal. Of course, there has to be accountability for those who broke the law, but I appeal to the unionist community to stay lawful and allow us to deal with the political and legal accountability.

I will be meeting the Public Prosecution Service and the Chief Constable to address people's legitimate issues, but I say this to the unionist community: let us get back on the front foot in promoting Northern Ireland's place in the United Kingdom and the benefits that that brings for everyone in Northern Ireland and how it is a fantastic place that punches above its weight in sport, feeds the nation and excels in many sectors. Let us focus on making Northern Ireland work for everyone but bring accountability for those who have done wrong on this issue. I appeal to everybody not to escalate a dispute in Portadown to other parades across Northern Ireland.

Mr Durkan: World Mental Health Day was at the weekend. We heard a lot of warm words about the importance of mental health, but warm words mean little when, for many people, the reality falls so far short. It took years for our mental health strategy to secure approval from the Executive, only for people to be told that there was no money to deliver it. Earlier this year, I exposed the fact that the Executive working group on mental well-being, resilience and suicide prevention had gone 18 months without meeting. Ministers were then basically embarrassed into having a meeting in March, but what happened next? One of the actions, if not the only action, decided on by Ministers at that meeting was to change the group's terms of reference and reduce its commitment to meet four times a year to just two. They went 18 months without meeting about suicide prevention, and, when they finally met, the first thing that they did was reduce how often they would meet in the future. How is mental health a priority? In 2024, 290 people were registered as dying by suicide across the North. How does meeting less frequently demonstrate the urgency and accountability that the crisis demands, never mind the duty to prevent the loss of even more lives and the devastation of even more families?

Northern Ireland has higher levels of mental ill health than elsewhere on these islands but spends less per person on services: a higher level of need but less investment. Waiting lists are growing, services are overstretched and workforce shortages persist. This year, just 16% of the funding required to implement the much vaunted and most impressive mental health strategy had been spent. We cannot keep publishing strategies without funding them.

We must also confront the impact of our politics on mental health. Politics here should help to heal our society, not perpetuate its trauma, yet some remain determined to open old wounds, reignite divisions and drag communities back into painful experiences that they have spent years or decades trying to overcome. We can and should remember our past, but we cannot build a healthier future by continually reopening our deepest wounds. We need leadership that offers healing and hope, not division and renewed trauma.

People facing mental health crises cannot afford to wait. They deserve investment, action and accountability, not empty promises. The Executive must stop talking about making mental health a priority and start acting like it is a priority.

Mr Boylan: I condemn in the strongest possible terms the threats made against my dear friend and colleague Councillor Paul Duffy and extend my full solidarity to Paul and his clan. Paul is a son of the Garvaghy Road. He represents the Garvaghy Road, and, over recent weeks, he has stood firm with his neighbours, as any public representative should. Yesterday, Paul went to his work and was faced with threatening graffiti. That is totally unacceptable. It is an attack on Paul, on his family and on the democratic process itself. That attack did not happen in isolation. It comes against a backdrop of incredibly dangerous and dehumanising language coming from political unionism about the Garvaghy Road and its residents, and it must end now.

Public representatives, like everyone, should be free to do their work and represent their constituents free from threats, fear or intimidation. That principle is not up for negotiation. Those behind the faceless threats have nothing to offer our society. They speak for no one. They will not silence Paul, and they will not intimidate his community. Paul has the full support of Sinn Féin and, I believe, of every right-thinking person in the Chamber and across our society. Anyone with information about those responsible should bring it to the PSNI.

Ms Brownlee: I rise to celebrate a significant milestone that took place from 5 October to 11 October, which was our first ever National Cadets Week. Across Northern Ireland and particularly throughout East Antrim, thousands of young people are involved in the Sea Cadets, the Army Cadet Force and the RAF Air Cadets. For generations, the cadet movement has been one of our great success stories, and its impact on our young people, their families and the wider community is significant.

National Cadets Week provides a really important opportunity to recognise what being a cadet really means, and His Majesty the King acknowledged in his message to the cadet forces that the movement helps:

Whether learning first aid, developing fieldcraft skills, taking part in aviation activities or learning seamanship and water safety, cadets are encouraged to step outside their comfort zones. They develop leadership, teamwork, discipline and resilience while learning the importance of responsibility and service to others. Of course, none of that would be possible without the dedication of the adult volunteers — the instructors and supporters who give up their evenings, their weekends and probably every inch of their free time to help our young people. Their contribution is often made without recognition, but the difference that they make to our young people's lives cannot be overstated.

I pay particular tribute to the cadet organisations operating in my constituency of East Antrim. It was wonderful to see the Sea Cadets joining young people from other units for a tour of HMS Queen Elizabeth. What a fantastic once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see the Royal Navy up close, meet some of the young people who serve and perhaps be inspired to consider a career in our armed forces, defence sectors or, of course, public service. In Carrickfergus, our Army Cadet Force attachment in D Company 1st (Northern Ireland) Battalion continues to provide young people with valuable opportunities to learn skills, build friendships and develop confidence, and I welcome its formal link with the Carrickfergus branch of the Royal British Legion, strengthening the connection between our young people, our veterans and our armed forces community.

The subject has a personal connection for me. In my youth, I had the wonderful experience of being a member of the RAF's 2062 (Carrickfergus) Squadron Air Cadets. That gave me a wealth of opportunities, including acrobatic flying, which was unbelievable, although it developed in me a significant fear of flying. That is exactly what the cadet movement is all about: giving young people opportunities and experiences that they would never otherwise have had, helping them to discover what they are capable of and encouraging them to challenge themselves.

I would like to thank every cadet, instructor and adult volunteer who makes that work possible. I encourage more young people and potential volunteers across East Antrim to find out what their local cadet organisations have to offer.

Mr Blair: I wish to mark Flood Awareness Week, which provides an important opportunity for us all to reflect on the risks posed by flooding and the practical steps that we can take to prepare for severe weather. The Department for Infrastructure estimates that around 45,000 homes and businesses are situated in areas of risk across Northern Ireland. Flooding can endanger lives, cause tens of thousands of pounds' worth of damage, at least, and leave lasting physical and emotional consequences.

I regret to say that those dangers are already a distressing reality for many residents in my South Antrim constituency. Homes and businesses along the Sixmilewater river and elsewhere have experienced repeated and devastating flooding. Residents in Antrim, Ballyclare, Dunadry, Glenavy and surrounding areas know the fear that comes with prolonged or heavy rain. They worry about their safety and that of their families and about whether their homes and businesses will once again be damaged, because it has happened so many times.

The Infrastructure Minister previously indicated that progress would be made on a comprehensive flood alleviation scheme for the Sixmilewater river and its catchment area, and I will continue to seek updates on progress. As we head into autumn and winter, we must all become better prepared, monitor weather warnings and understand what to do before, during and after a flood. However, responsibility cannot rest solely with individual residents who are impacted by flooding.

The impact of continued development and the associated run-off along the banks of the Sixmilewater river can no longer be ignored. The reality must form a central part of future planning and infrastructure policy. New development must be supported by adequate drainage and flood prevention measures, rather than adding further pressure to communities that already live with an unacceptable level of flood risk. Flooding along the Sixmilewater is not only a threat to homes, roads and businesses but an environmental crisis. When a river bursts its banks, it can carry sediment, agricultural run-off, nutrients and pollutants into the wider catchment, including, of course, Lough Neagh. Those flood events damage water quality, undermine biodiversity and place further strain on already fragile ecosystems.

Therefore, again, I call on the Infrastructure Minister to bring forward robust and climate-resilient flood alleviation measures for the Sixmilewater river and other historically affected areas without further delay. We have already waited for some time. Residents who have faced repeated flooding can be assured that I will continue to raise the issue and work to ensure that the people of South Antrim will see the meaningful and climate-proofed action that they deserve.

Mr McCrossan: I have had the privilege of representing West Tyrone in the House for 12 years, and I have had very strong working relationships and friendships with people across the Chamber from all walks of life and different political, religious and other backgrounds. However, I have to say that the events of yesterday and recent weeks have shown the very worst of this place.

I left here last night facing a two-hour drive home and feeling utterly depressed, angry and frustrated by the abuse that was hurled across the Chamber. As I travelled, however, I kept thinking about the people who would give anything to see that same energy devoted to helping them and improving their lives, which is the reason why we are elected to the House. I thought of the mother lying awake at night wondering how she will be able to afford to heat her home or feed her family. I thought of the parent who, as we speak, is sitting in hospital holding the hand of a loved one, frightened about what the time ahead might bring. I thought of the elderly person who has had to sit in an emergency department for hours while exhausted and desperate for help. Those people are not asking us to settle every single argument about the past. They are asking us to recognise our differences, respect them and move forward together. They are asking us to build a future for everyone in our society.

Under the Good Friday Agreement, this place was meant to be a symbol of hope: a place where we could disagree but respect one another and the differences of opinion that we have. Too often, however, that promise has been abused. Instead of overcoming the sectarian divisions of this society, some have allowed them to become institutionalised. We all know where that leads and the pain that it causes and how thoughtless and reckless words and actions can damage the cherished and fragile peace that we hold dear.

People watching at home can reasonably ask, "Where is the same passion when a child needs support at school? Where is the urgency for the loved one waiting for treatment or the families struggling with the cost of living?". What answer can we give them? Every week, I meet people, as do Members in the Chamber, who are worn down. We have filled in their forms, made calls and explained their circumstances. They just want their lives to be improved, and that is why they elect us to this institution, yet their struggles were overshadowed yesterday by another bitter exchange between parties entrusted to govern. That was not what was promised and is not what our people deserve.

We have always represented the greater good. There is common good in this place. We overcame great struggles in the past. We cannot allow one or two individuals to drag us back in any direction. The two largest parties have had the privilege of governing this place for 20 years and have a responsibility to show leadership. It is not easy when you come from opposing difficult ends, but being led by Jamie Bryson, Timothy or others down a difficult place serves nobody. We have a responsibility to —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Mr McCrossan: — show leadership and represent all our constituents.

Mr Wilson: I rise to highlight the worsening condition of the road network across the Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council (ABC) area and the growing consequences of the failure of the Infrastructure Minister to get to grips with that crisis. Nobody who travels on the roads needs to be convinced that there is a serious problem, whether commuters travelling to work, farmers moving machinery, businesses delivering goods or families simply going about their daily lives. People encounter deteriorating road surfaces and dangerous potholes every day. What is particularly concerning, however, is that we now have the figures that demonstrate the scale of the problem. The Department's statistics show that pothole-related claims across the ABC area have risen from 237 in 2021-22 to 1,687 in 2025-26. That represents an increase of more than 600% in just five years. Perhaps the most startling figure is that more than one in four of the pothole claims made in Northern Ireland during the last financial year came from the ABC area.

The consequences extend beyond the frustration experienced by motorists. Over the past five years, public liability claim expenditure across the ABC East and West DFI Roads section areas exceeded £4·4 million, money that ultimately comes from the public purse and could be directed towards improving public services and investing in our infrastructure. I fully recognise the challenges posed by years of underinvestment in the road network, but the Infrastructure Minister cannot simply point to historical difficulties while conditions continue to worsen on her watch. Road maintenance is a core responsibility of the Department for Infrastructure. The public expect roads to be maintained to a safe and reasonable standard and defects to be repaired before they develop into hazards capable of causing damage and generating costly claims.

It is unacceptable that road defects are permitted by inaction to get so deep and cause damage so severe that a motorist is stranded by the side of the road. It is similarly unacceptable when a motorist may have reported that same defect through the Department's reporting system on multiple occasions. I am aware of holes remaining unfixed for so long that they generated £7,000 in wheel damage claims before belatedly being repaired. A sum of £4·4 million would fix a lot of roads, and I urge the Minister to get to grips with what is a spiralling situation in her constituency.

Mr Gaston: Yesterday, I reminded the House of the character reference that comes with the convicted terrorist Breandán Mac Cionnaith, whom nationalism has enthroned as the chief constable of the Garvaghy Road. Breandán Mac Cionnaith is the man who bombed the heart out of Portadown. He is the man who has led Sinn Féin, the dissidents and its new bedfellows in the SDLP by the nose for the past three weeks.

It is not just the events at Drumcree that should remind us of the evil of men such as Mac Cionnaith. Data supplied by the British embassy in Dublin to the Government of the Irish Republic shows that, in 1981, the year of the Mac Cionnaith bombing, 95·7% of the explosives recovered in Northern Ireland came from Irish Industrial Explosives — explosives supposedly used for quarrying south of the border — yet, as with much of the Provo campaign, Dublin turned a blind eye to what was going on.

Seventeen years after Mac Cionnaith bombed Portadown, the Real IRA bombed Omagh. Yesterday, at the Omagh bombing inquiry, we found out that Dublin turned a blind eye to republican terror then too. After years of trying to blame the RUC for the inaction that allowed the bomb to come into the town centre, the truth finally emerged yesterday at the inquiry: the Irish Army received a tip-off the night before but failed to pass it on. It received a call from Bundoran on 14 August warning that a car bomb was headed for Omagh. What did the Irish Army do with that information? Did it pass it to the RUC? No, it did not. It did not even write up a note of it until two days after the bombing, and it then tried to deny any link to it. For years, Dublin has shown a real lack of cooperation. We now have crucial evidence that shows that the Republic did nothing to interrupt the Omagh bomb's travelling from its territory to Northern Ireland.

Portadown and Omagh were 17 years apart, but both raise this question for Dublin: why were the warnings not acted on and the explosives not stopped? The Irish Republic was an active participant in ethnic cleansing along the border counties here. It is time that it be held accountable.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That ends Members' statements.

Mr Burrows: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, I came into the Chamber as the debate was winding up, so I slipped in an AirPod to listen to part of the debate that I had missed, and I then drafted a social media post. The Speaker addressed the matter yesterday. I apologise. I was working, but I will do that outside the Chamber in future.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: OK.

Mr O'Toole: I beg to move

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

Mr O'Toole: After the division and toxicity of last night, the Opposition are doing what we have done for almost the past three years, which is getting back to the business of focusing on people's needs, on their public services, on how we work together in partnership to make this place work, on how we live up to the spirit of the 1998 agreement and on the idea that, as a people, we are better when we focus on the common good rather than on what divides us.

I am disappointed but perhaps not surprised that the two main parties are so poorly represented here today when they turned up with such enthusiasm last night to sling mud at one another. We profoundly disagreed with the motives behind the motions, but we turned up to participate in those debates. The same courtesy has not been extended to the official Opposition as we come here today to do our business and hold the Executive collectively to account.

We are 20 years on from the St Andrews Agreement. I do not want to focus on all the detail of the St Andrews Agreement or spend a huge amount of time re-litigating the rights and wrongs of it. I and the Opposition want to use it, however, as an opportunity to look back at some of what has happened over the past 20 years and think about how we change the way this place works, whatever our long-term aspiration. We are proudly and unashamedly a party that believes in a new Ireland, but we also believe that the best way to get there is to build a better Northern Ireland along the way and prove that we are sincere in our belief in the common good and common purpose, leading to the new Ireland that we want to live in. We respect the people who do not share that aspiration, whether they are unionist or simply do not to take a view, and do not agree with it.

The St Andrews Agreement happened in 2006. For those who are interested in history, that was a year after I graduated from the university in the same place. We can have a debate about which of us has aged better. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you would not possibly take a view, given that you are in the Chair today. It was 20 years ago. In this place, at times, it feels as though time flies, but, at other times, it feels as though time moves extremely slowly, because people, at times, want to drag us back into the past. However, we need to be focused on the future and how we build for the future.

The original Good Friday Agreement was based on the principle of partnership and power-sharing, specifically consociationalism as the technical means by which we share power. St Andrews moved that forward. In some ways, it moved us backwards, but it moved us forward in that it allowed a power-sharing Government, led by Sinn Féin and the DUP, to be re-established in 2007. I acknowledge that that involved big political decisions and, indeed, courage from the leaders of both those parties at that time. It would be churlish not to acknowledge that and pretend that it did not involve real courage, trade-offs, decision-making and leadership. However, it is also true to say that the outworkings of the St Andrews Agreement led to some of what we have seen in the past few years, which is complete stasis in decision-making.
Since we came back here in 2024, there has been a deep frustration among the public about the absence of meaningful delivery. First, there has been the absence of a clear, coherent Programme for Government, with a short, clear set of priorities for the public. Doing government is complicated in the 21st century — we all know that — and it is difficult when you have to share power with people with whom you do not agree on very much. It is not just about Irish unity versus the Union but about left versus right. That is not easy. What it requires is a short, clear set of priorities so that you can say to the public, "You've given us power. This is how we're going to use it on your behalf. This is what we can agree to prioritise: fixing the health service, investing in waste water infrastructure, and rescuing our environment and dealing with the crisis at Lough Neagh". Those are three obvious areas where the public have not yet seen clear prioritisation from the Executive, in all their diversity, and a clear set of targets that they are signed up to and are going to deliver on.

The outworking of that has been stasis, lack of delivery, frustration and a loss of confidence in this place. That is bad for everybody, whether you are unionist, nationalist or neither. Key priorities that were supposed to be delivered have not been delivered. The Economy Minister had promised a 'good jobs' employment rights Bill, and, as a party on the left that is proudly social democratic and that believes in workers' rights, we supported it. We have not seen a 'good jobs' Bill, however, and it is now extremely unlikely — vanishingly unlikely — that we will see it. We know that the reason for that is that the DUP has refused to allow it to get out of the Executive.

At the New Decade, New Approach talks nearly seven years ago, there was agreement to create an independent environmental protection agency, which is critical in a place where we have allowed our environment to decline to such a state that the biggest source of our drinking water is effectively becoming an open-air sewer. How shameful is it that our political institutions and system of government have got us into that situation? The Executive cannot agree on an independent environmental protection agency, and that is partly because of the stasis created by the St Andrews Agreement, where parties can operate a mutual veto that prevents any progress from happening. That is not good enough. We need to reform and change it.

We also have the crisis that has been created by the absence of a Budget. We are more than halfway through the financial year, and we have no Budget. The official Opposition has always agreed with the Executive that we want the maximum possible funding, and that they have a clear case because of the comparisons with the funding in Scotland and Wales. We have never quibbled about that. We have said that drifting halfway into the financial year, allowing cuts to be made by the people who run technical colleges, further education colleges and hospital trusts without any accountability and drifting into chaos is no way to deliver an improved Budget settlement. The de facto position of the Executive is, effectively, to hand over the responsibility to public servants and then risk handing the British Government all the power to set a Budget, even though you say that they do not prioritise this place, and that is correct. That is shameful and absurd, but it is the position that we have arrived at barely six months from the end of the mandate. There is an extremely poor record of delivery, with no clear set of priorities for reforming the health service and investing in waste water and very limited progress on setting a Budget to deliver on those priorities.

I am not saying that those things are easy, or that they would have been easy in a reformed Stormont, but it is clear that we need to reform this place. We have suggested a short, finite list of modest reforms that could be done by Christmas, starting with reforming how we elect a Speaker. Our leader, Claire Hanna, has prioritised making the argument for those reforms but also for longer-term reform after the next election when the parties have returned with a new mandate. We need fundamental reform of how this place works, and that will mean a more flexible, agile Stormont that can deliver for people's needs.

I say all that because, 20 years on from the St Andrews Agreement, which was about ensuring that we had a Government, it is clear that we cannot go on like this. Simply existing is not good enough. The public does not buy it anymore. They do not think that it is good enough that we come here, throw mud at one another, refuse to take responsibility for setting a Budget and then expect them to vote for us simply on the basis of mud-slinging. That is not good enough. Whether you want a new Ireland as I do, or you believe in the Union, or you simply do not care, it is not good enough. This place should be about setting priorities, dealing with urgent problems, being honest with the public about the challenges and trade-offs, which I will come to in our next motion, and offering leadership. When there are disagreements, by all means hash them out, but what we are doing at the minute is simply not good enough.

Our motion is clear that tearing this place down is not a solution either. In an article in 'The Irish News' a few months ago, when some republicans and nationalists talked about simply walking away because the DUP was blocking things, and they thought that collapsing Stormont would be a fast track to a united Ireland, I was clear that it would not be. It would be handing over all power to London. It would be abdicating the responsibility to build a new Ireland, which starts in the North, here and now. I said that in 'The Irish News' six months ago. Today, in the 'Newsletter', I said to unionists and loyalists, who are now threatening to collapse this place, that it is not a solution for them either. I do not claim to be a unionist, but it is no solution for our people, whether you are unionist, nationalist or anything else, to simply tear down the political institutions, walk away from the difficult challenges and refuse to take responsibility for delivering for your people.

I believe in a new Ireland, and it starts here, in this Building. I do not love Stormont. To be honest, I do not particularly like it at all. A lot of the delivery mechanisms frustrate me, but I am here, and my colleagues are here in opposition, to do a job for all the people of the North because we believe in building our new Ireland, starting here and now by proving to people of all backgrounds that we want to make their lives and public services better. I commend the motion to the House.

Ms Bradshaw: I beg to move the following amendment:

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Paula. You will have 10 minutes to propose the amendment and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak in the debate will have five minutes.

Ms Bradshaw: Clearly, we have no issue with the original motion, especially with regard to securing progress on policing and justice and the wider need for reform to provide stability in the institutions. However, our amendment is important because, without it, the motion is a fair statement of facts but, we feel, lacks solutions. Our amendment reiterates the Alliance Party's call for a new shared future framework for our Departments. It should be proposed by the guarantors of the agreement but carried out independently.

Before the St Andrews Agreement, we had 'A Shared Future', but it was stalled by political instability and a lack of focus, just as similar work is stalled by political instability and lack of focus now. We then had the cohesion, sharing and integration strategy, which was essentially abandoned. Then, in 2013, we had Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC), and we are only now, 13 years on, seeing work by the Executive Office on a new, evolving good relations framework. The events of the past few weeks have shown us that we still have so much more work to do in our efforts at grassroots level and in these institutions to embed peace and reconciliation.

As we know, Northern Ireland lacks a clear definition of good relations. We have been calling for many years for it to be embedded in the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and it is our contention that we are not seeing serious work by the Executive Office to address the need for reconciliation. What we have seen for the last number of decades has been a process of managing division. Reconciliation is defined by Hamber and Kelly as:

I wonder how much of that has actually happened. Interestingly, reconciliation is now a requirement for all public authorities. Through the Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act 2022, the Northern Ireland Act was amended to include section 78F(2)(b):

What would an independent evaluation of progress on achieving that say currently?

As mentioned in the motion, one of the many issues is that St Andrews took us backwards. Far from tackling institutionalised sectarianism and its inevitable consequences, such as undermining trust and decision-making on the basis of mutual respect and understanding, it reinforced it. The system was designed to suit the two big parties, as they can turn every election into a race for First Minister. Far from power-sharing, we have power-dividing. As the motion states, effective decision-making is being undermined, systems are being abused to deliver little other than blockage and delay and petitions of concern have become sectarian vetoes. Indeed, any evaluation of progress on reconciliation would have to include how sectarian vetoes have shaped and harmed relations in Northern Ireland.

I wonder how many among us have read the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement recently. It is a striking document to read three decades on. The second paragraph is instantly notable:

I wonder whether anyone looking at the Chamber and at some of our Committees over recent days and weeks could really present an argument that reconciliation, tolerance and mutual respect have been achieved by the Assembly.

A shared future framework could do worse than start with the principles laid down in the 1998 agreement, address whether the 2006 agreement at St Andrews really advanced us along the road to reconciliation, tolerance and mutual respect and seek to develop a process with public buy-in that really delivers the shared future that our constituents were promised and deserve. In the last few weeks —.

Mr Brett: I appreciate the Member's giving away. She is always generous.

The Member has proposed her amendment, but I still struggle to understand why on the earth the Irish Government would have any role in a strand one issue. Is it now the position of the Alliance Party that the Republic of Ireland, as a foreign jurisdiction, should have a say on internal affairs in Northern Ireland? In my view, that is what the amendment that you are proposing states.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you for your intervention. Mr Brett will have heard me say many times that we will not have reconciliation on this island until all actors in the Troubles have a part in and a responsibility to deliver on that reconciliation.

I am about to close, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. If the last few weeks have taught us anything, it is that it is time to end sectarian vetoes and get on with making progress on genuine and meaningful reconciliation.

Mr Sheehan: Twenty-eight years ago, the Good Friday Agreement transformed politics on the island. It was built on the principles of equality, mutual respect, power-sharing and protection of rights. Those principles are as important today as they were in 1998. They must remain the foundation of any reform of our political institutions. However, a fault line runs through the institutions here. I respect the position of the Opposition party, which frequently uses the narrative that the two big parties are the problem, but that is no excuse for a flawed analysis of where the problem — the fault line — actually lies. We know that the party opposite has never bought into the Good Friday Agreement. It does not agree with power-sharing. We have heard its Ministers frequently say that they do not work in partnership with other members of the Executive. The leader of the Opposition talked about the 'good jobs' Bill. The reason why it has not come out of the Executive is that the DUP is blocking it.

Mr O'Toole: I said that.

Mr Sheehan: I know that you said it; I am not criticising you on that. However, that is where the fault line lies: with a party that has never bought into power-sharing or the Good Friday Agreement and retains the mindset that it is whatever unionism wants that counts in these institutions. The difficulty in all of this is that there is a fault line. We can reform the institutions here. Sinn Féin has proposed a comprehensive set of reforms for the Assembly, and I will go through them. However, again, when it comes to reform, the question is this: where is the opposition to reform? The opposition to reform is coming from the party that also opposes the Good Friday Agreement.

Protecting the Good Friday Agreement does not for one minute mean that our institutions cannot be improved: they can be improved. Too often, political instability has disrupted government, delayed progress and undermined public confidence in our institutions. That is why meaningful reform is necessary. No political party should have the power to hold our institutions, our public services or the people whom we represent to ransom. That is why Sinn Féin has put forward a series of practical and meaningful proposals for reform. We propose ending the veto that allows a single party to prevent the formation of an Executive. The largest nationalist and unionist parties would retain their right to nominate the First Minister and deputy First Minister, but, if either refused that opportunity, it would pass to other parties. Power-sharing must be protected, but no party should have a veto over whether government can function. We also propose removing the veto over the election of the Assembly Speaker, ensuring that the Assembly can continue its legislative and scrutiny functions. We want greater transparency and accountability in the decisions of the Speaker, fairer treatment for MLAs who designate as "Other" and the appointment of the Justice Minister brought into line with other ministerial appointments. Those are sensible, practical reforms that would strengthen democracy, improve accountability and make our institutions more resilient. Crucially, they could be delivered while protecting the fundamental safeguards of the Good Friday Agreement. Those safeguards matter beyond the walls of the Chamber, and I take the opportunity to express my solidarity with the residents of the Garvaghy Road. Twenty-eight years after the Good Friday Agreement, those residents should not still have to defend their right to live in peace, free from sectarian harassment, intimidation and the supremacist attitudes of the Orange Order.

We recognise that institutional reform alone will not resolve every challenge that we face, particularly the chronic underfunding of our public services by the British Government. That is why we remain firmly committed to building a new, united Ireland, as provided for in the Good Friday Agreement. However, in the here and now, we have a responsibility to make these institutions work, to deliver for workers and families and to ensure that political instability never again becomes an excuse for denying people the Government whom they elected. The Good Friday Agreement must be protected and our institutions must be strengthened —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Your time is up, Pat.

Mr Sheehan: — so that no single party can bring them down. That is the approach that —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Sheehan: — Sinn Féin will continue to advance.

Mr Martin: The DUP endorsed the principles of devolution, including the establishment of the Executive and Assembly. We did believe, however, that the arrangements handed individual Ministers too much power to make contentious decisions that would ultimately negatively impact on public confidence. We had deep concerns around a lack of accountability over North/South structures, ministerial support for the rule of law and the devolution of policing and justice. It is our party's view that the St Andrews Agreement addressed those fundamental concerns through some reforms. I will not go into those in detail today, but we still support those principles.

It is not clear from the motion which of the safeguards — my words — the SDLP proposes to repeal. However, I note that it was happy to justify some lawbreaking that we saw recently on the Garvaghy Road. Perhaps one can therefore conclude that it would be comfortable with Ministers being freed from any requirement to support the rule of law before entering office. Rather than undoing the St Andrews requirement around that, there is a clear argument to strengthen accountability regarding it.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: I will, briefly.

Mr O'Toole: First, there is no determination around the events that are happening on the Garvaghy Road, but the Member is entitled to make the point. The Member has mentioned lawbreaking. Several of his Ministers — not to engage in whataboutery — including some who are still serving, were found to be in breach of the ministerial code by the High Court. Does he accept that that is regrettable, to put it mildly?

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

Mr Martin: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

My comments were about lawbreaking. As the leader of the Opposition knows, those are two different things.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Member for giving way. The leader of the Opposition opened the debate by criticising "the division and toxicity" in the Assembly yesterday and said that he was pleased to bring constructive opposition here. Are the comments that he has just added by way of an intervention his own division and toxicity coming through?

Mr Martin: I thank my colleague for the intervention. My colleagues and I have reflected on that in recent debates. I am disappointed in the stance that the SDLP has taken over the Garvaghy Road. I was also surprised by it, because I know the Members involved in that party. I will not dwell on that. I want to make progress, but that is my position on it.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: No.

We stand over St Andrews and warn against any attempt to unpick it. Such arrangements, in my view, could lead to a nationalist/republican-Alliance-backed supermajority in this place to ride completely roughshod over the unionist community in Northern Ireland.

In the current mandate of the Assembly, Alliance has voted with Sinn Féin 73·6% of the time. The proposer's party, the SDLP, has voted with Sinn Féin only 69% of the time. Alliance is, by definition, more republican than the SDLP on votes alone. I am not sure whom that is a compliment to. That in itself should be a wake-up call to all those who view the Alliance Party as some sort of liberal, fluffy, cross-community party and vote for them accordingly. Voting for Alliance is the same as voting for Members opposite — Sinn Féin — three out of four times.

Cross-community consensus remains integral to the future of devolution. That applies as much to reform of these institutions as it does to any current operation. Therefore, any reform should be about ensuring effective, local, accountable government in Northern Ireland that will secure the future of Northern Ireland for our children and grandchildren. Reform should not be used as a short-term tool for pure political point-scoring. We believe in and completely share the concept that local decision-making is the best route to building a prosperous and thriving Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. We are a devolutionist party and believe that people making decisions here is the most accountable mechanism.

It is clear that, when direct rule Ministers were in place, they showed scant regard for unionists' views. Over the past 10 years, we have seen them force through some of the most liberal abortion laws in the whole of Europe and laws on the Irish language and identity and on relationships and sexuality education (RSE). Extended direct rule is not something that we in the DUP regard as being in the UK's best strategic interests.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: No, I am going to see whether I can finish my contribution. Sorry, Matthew. It is only because of time.

The tactics of people who advocate that this place should not exist, such as those in the TUV, simply play into Sinn Féin's hands. Mr Gaston, who is a smart guy, may advocate that the First Minister be removed through the removal of the deputy First Minister, but I am sure that he realises that that is exactly what Sinn Féin wants to happen in this place, given its Ministers' lamentable delivery. On top of that, it would allow Sinn Féin to play the victim card. I proffer Mr Gaston some advice on that point. In battle, you do not do what your enemy wants you to do. Rather, you do the opposite.

In a letter that was published in the 'News Letter' this morning, Steven Owens said:

My party will continue to deliver strategic and —

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

Mr Martin: — responsible leadership for the unionist community —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Mr Martin: — in Northern Ireland.

Dr Aiken: In October 2006, a deal was done at St Andrews to which the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP were strongly opposed. It was designed to "appease the extremes". Those were the words of Jonathan Powell, who was very much involved in the negotiations. The deal was done behind the backs of the UUP and the SDLP and was designed specifically to undermine the middle ground while bringing the "extremes", as he called them, into the political process. Although the deal contained a significant number of changes to the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, the most far-reaching change was to the mechanism to be used to identify who would fill the office of First Minister. The original mechanism, which was negotiated by the Ulster Unionist Party in 1998 and subsequently approved by 71·1% of those who voted in the referendum on 22 May 1998, stipulated that the First Minister was to be drawn from the largest party in the largest designation and ratified alongside the deputy First Minister in a joint resolution of the Assembly by a cross-community vote.

Mr Brett: Will the Member give way?

Dr Aiken: Not just yet.

The designations were "Unionist", "Nationalist" and "Other", and, under the Assembly process, it was clear that the First Minister and the deputy First Minister drew their power from the Assembly and were answerable to it. That process was destroyed in 2006 in favour of the mechanism that we have now, resulting in the catalogue of failure that we have seen since.

Jonathan Powell has a lot of issues, but he did say that he accepts that the British Government sought to build a process from the extremes rather than from the centre. He also accepted, however, that, while doing so, he deliberately undermined the centre. He seemed to view the deal as some kind of success story, but like his other success stories — Iraq, Afghanistan, the Chagos Islands and various other places — it has been very far from successful. Indeed, the lack of strategic thinking that occurred at St Andrews is demonstrated by the fact that it is one of the reasons that, 20 years on, we are still dealing with some significant problems. In fact, we have not moved on to dealing with the most important issue, which is to make Northern Ireland work for everyone. Time and again, we get wrapped up in issues because of the failures that happened at St Andrews.

Such comments have not miraculously appeared out of nowhere. The approach was very well understood at the time, but David Trimble and Séamus Mallon were deliberately undermined in order to ensure that the change occurred. That was done not only by the British Government but by the Irish Government. There was a sense that they needed to bring in, as they themselves said, the "extremes", because, in some way, doing so would make Northern Ireland a better place.

I do not know whether Members have ever studied the "great successes" of the Tony Blair Administration and what they did in peacebuilding around the world, but there are not many examples. Indeed, every one of them seems to work on the basis of undermining the basic principles from the beginning. The beauty of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement was that it was designed to be a careful balance to make sure that the people of Northern Ireland had a representative form of government that dealt with all the pieces in a particular way in order to deliver for them. The St Andrews Agreement fundamentally undermined that principle. To anybody who spent any time talking to David Trimble or Séamus Mallon — I spoke to both — and has been to the various so-called peace conferences around the world and listened to people expound on how great the St Andrews Agreement was and what it was going to deliver, I point out that it has failed, and failed considerably.

What we are talking about is clearly a strand one issue. It is nothing to do with the Irish Government. We will not support the amendment. We will support the motion but not the amendment.

Mr Brett: I oppose the amendment and the motion. It is telling that the Belfast Agreement seems to be whatever anyone wants it to be. Last week, we had Richie Neal once again claim that the United States of America was a co-guarantor of the Belfast Agreement. We had the SDLP tell us that the European Union was a co-guarantor of the Belfast Agreement. Now we have the Ulster Unionist Party continuing a trope and deliberate deception about the Belfast Agreement. It is telling that the Member would not give way when I asked him to. Not one Member who has spoken has been able to articulate or read out where the Belfast Agreement or the Northern Ireland Act states that the largest party from the largest designation should hold the position of First Minister. I read the piece in today's 'News Letter' by Reg Empey, a man who claims that he was a negotiator of the Belfast Agreement yet does not even seem to know what is in the very agreement that he negotiated. Perhaps the unionist electorate rejected the Ulster Unionist Party because it did not know what it had negotiated.

I will read paragraph 15 from strand one of the Belfast Agreement into the record:

Paragraph 5(d)(i) refers to:

That was then incorporated into the Northern Ireland Act. It was said:

Where does the agreement state that the leader of the largest party of the largest designation should be First Minister? Nowhere. The Ulster Unionist Party has just plucked that from the sky. Every couple of years, it takes Reg Empey out of deep freeze to put out that line again. It is utter nonsense, and the Ulster Unionist Party needs to stop being deliberately deceptive on the issue.

In 2003, the DUP made it clear that it would campaign for a fair deal for the people for Northern Ireland that reflected the concerns of unionists and nationalists equally. The people of Northern Ireland and the unionist community put their trust in this party. We did not pluck our mandate from the sky. It came from people across Northern Ireland who believed in our vision and our determination to change the Belfast Agreement, and we changed the Belfast Agreement. We ensured that Ministers could not longer go on solo runs. The late Martin McGuinness tried to scrap academic selection. It is back now, thanks to the DUP, but he was able to do that in negotiation with the Ulster Unionist Party. North/South structures, which are accountable to this place, were previously not so under the Ulster Unionist Party.

I say this kindly to the Ulster Unionist Party: perhaps if you reflect on the fact that the people of Northern Ireland gave their mandate to the DUP because we wanted to deliver a fair deal for the people of Northern Ireland rather than what you believe to be in the Belfast Agreement, you may have greater electoral success. Interestingly, I read on social media today that the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, Mr Burrows, was coming to the Chamber to set the DUP straight, tell us how terribly we negotiated the St Andrews Agreement and set out his vision. Where is he? He is nowhere to be seen.

Mr Wilson: He is listening to his AirPods.

Mr Brett: Perhaps he is outside on his —

Dr Aiken: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brett: I will not give way, Mr Aiken, because you did not afford me the same manners when I asked you.

Dr Aiken: He is talking to the Chief Constable.

Mr Brett: That is very good; he can talk to whomever he wants. However, if he advertises that he is going to do something and then fails to do it, he can explain that to the people of Northern Ireland. Perhaps he will make up another alternative truth, as the Ulster Unionist Party does in this Chamber.

My party will oppose the amendment from the Alliance Party. The fact that it believes that the Irish Government have any say on strand one issues is, frankly, remarkable. My party will not support that. We are very clear that the protections that are in place in relation to reform need to stay. Let us look at Belfast City Council to see how the unionist electorate and the unionist community are treated by Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the Alliance Party. You run roughshod over them and have no interest in them, and we will happily stand in this place day and daily and face you down.

Mr Gaston: There is an old proverb that says, "Time proves all things", and, my oh my, when one looks back at the St Andrews Agreement, is that not the truth? Consider what was said about the St Andrews Agreement and how it was mis-sold to unionists. Twenty years ago to this very day, the then DUP leader, Dr Paisley, issued a statement that deserves to be aired in the Chamber. He stated:

How has that worked out over the past three weeks? The pivotal issue that Dr Paisley refers to was Sinn Féin's support for policing and the rule of law before the DUP would even consider sharing power with Sinn Féin. Just last night, in the Chamber, DUP Member after DUP Member got up and stated the obvious. I agreed with the speeches that they made, but each one of them stopped short before they got to the crux, before they got to the lever that they have at their disposal, and before they could pull the lever and say that Emma Little-Pengelly must resign from office because the DUP cannot share power with Sinn Féin because Sinn Féin does not support the rule of law. Sinn Féin showed yesterday that it has nothing but contempt — still — for the rule of law and for the courts of this land, and that happened simply because Sinn Féin did not like one decision that went against it in the past 28 years.

Mr Martin: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: I am happy to give way to Mr Martin.

Mr Martin: The Member is always very gracious, and I feel like we are trading proverbs this morning. On the point about Sinn Féin's lawlessness, I often say to my children that we take responsibility for our own actions, not for other people's. Does the Member agree that there are lawful parties in the Chamber and that responsibility for the actions on the Garvaghy Road needs to be held by the people who were there, breaking the law?

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

Mr Gaston: I do not accept that, for this simple reason: just because one side is lawless and has shown its true colours does not mean that those on this side of the Chamber, who have the power to remove the other side from office, should continue to sit on their hands, do nothing and let them away with it. Sinn Féin will continue to laugh and continue to be lawless because it knows that the DUP does not have the backbone or the guts to do something and put Sinn Féin out of office. You have all the consequences and are talking about the levers, but you simply will not pull them.

Let us move on and look at what the then deputy leader of the DUP said about the St Andrews Agreement. Twenty years ago, he issued a statement in which he contrasted the Belfast Agreement with the St Andrews Agreement. What was the difference, according to Mr Peter Robinson? He said:

How is that going today, Democratic Unionist Party? How is that going for those whom you prop up in government? How is that going for you today?

I will respond to Mr Martin, whose compliment I appreciate. Applying your logic, you will turn a blind eye to anything and everything that Sinn Féin does and will continue to prop it up in government. It is in government only because you hold the deputy First Minister post. I agree with Carla Lockhart — I only wish that we had more Carla Lockharts to sit on that Bench — who has the audacity or temerity to stand up and the courage of her convictions to point out that the way to wipe the smile off Sinn Féin's face, show it up and bring it to task is to evict Michelle O'Neill from office. The Executive would trundle on; the only thing that we would notice is that the First Minister would not have to come to the Executive Office Committee. That would be the only consequence. If the First Minister were to be removed from post, the Executive would continue. However, you will not even do that because you are too scared of the Ulster Unionists. They would not give you any cover to pull Emma Little-Pengelly out of office. On the one side, you are looking at the Ulster Unionist Party, and, on the other, you are looking at the TUV. My challenge to the DUP Members sitting on those Benches is this: find your inner Carla Lockhart, speak out and represent your community. It is time that unionism got off its knees, grew a backbone, held the republicans and the SDLP, who have joined forces with the new Chief Constable of the Garvaghy Road, to account and put them out of office. Unionism is watching, and, so far, it has seen you do absolutely nothing.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Stewart Dickson to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. Stewart, you have five minutes.

Mr Dickson: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank Members for their contributions to the debate today, particularly my colleague Paula Bradshaw, who moved the Alliance Party amendment. Although some who are here today want to relive old battles, we want to move forward and move the people of Northern Ireland forward. We know that the people of Northern Ireland want us to move forward. Twenty years on from the St Andrews Agreement, it is right that we take stock of where we are. St Andrews helped us to restore devolution at a difficult time, and that was important. I read earlier a quote from Dr Paisley in which he said that, on 8 December 2007, he had for the first time sat down and had a conversation with Martin McGuinness. Until then, they had not even exchanged a word about the weather. Importantly, St Andrews moved us forward at that point in time.

To be honest, however, problems have followed, particularly when it comes to how our institutions operate and how easily political disagreement can bring government to a standstill. I first came to the Chamber in 2011, and we have lived through days of that. We have seen the consequences far too often: decisions delayed, public services left in limbo, and people wondering whether the politicians whom they elected are actually going to do their job. I think that is how people listen to and look at this place every day. It is no way to run government, and it certainly does nothing to build public confidence. That is why the Alliance Party has consistently argued for the reform of our institutions. We need arrangements that are stable, accountable and capable of making decisions, even when parties disagree. Disagreement is part of party politics, but it should not be enough to bring everything to a grinding halt.

It is easy to get caught up in the mechanics of government, particularly here in Northern Ireland, where we spend an extraordinary amount of time debating who holds which office and how decisions are made. Those things matter — of course they do — but we also need to ask what progress we have made in bringing our communities together. That is the essential thing that the Assembly is here to do: to build a new future and a new space for all people in Northern Ireland. Yes, we have made progress over the past 20 years, and I do not want to dismiss that, but, for me and the rest of the Alliance Party, it is not ambitious enough. There are people and organisations across Northern Ireland that do incredible work in community relations, shared education and bringing together people from all sorts of backgrounds. Much of that work happens quietly and without the recognition that it deserves.

Despite that, we continue to live with division in our schools, housing and many of the other spaces that we use every day. We cannot assume that, 20 years on, something will inevitably sort that out or that it will be sorted out somehow. The figures are telling: in 2024, 76% of adults said that they would prefer to live in a mixed-religion neighbourhood, yet only 37% of young people believed that relations between Protestants and Catholics had improved over the previous five years. Those figures measure different things, but they suggest a real appetite for a more shared society. That is what I believe in, and I know that the people of Northern Ireland want us to deliver a genuinely shared society.

Twenty years on from the St Andrews Agreement, it is reasonable to ask whether we have made any of the progress that we had hoped for and whether the approach is delivering the change that people want to see. We need to understand what has worked, where progress has been slower and what still needs to be done. That understanding should inform a new shared future framework that should be developed with communities rather than simply being presented to them. Building a shared future is not a matter for just the Executive Office or the organisations working in good relations; it should reflect the decisions that we make on education, housing and public services as well as how we invest in our communities. The British and Irish Governments also have a role to play in that. Both were central to the agreement that helped to bring us to this point, and they have an ongoing responsibility to support reconciliation.

Twenty years on from the St Andrews Agreement, we should be able to look at our institutions and ask whether they are working, what changes we need to make and what options we have to move things forward. That is what our amendment is about: taking stock of the progress that we have made, being honest about what remains to be done and making sure that there is a proper plan to take that work forward. We welcome the recognition by parties in the Chamber that reform is long overdue. Our amendment calls for that reform and invites genuine co-design in delivering a new shared —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Mr Dickson: — future framework for all.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Stewart. I call Daniel McCrossan to make a winding-up speech. Daniel, you have 10 minutes. Thank you.

Mr McCrossan: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I have a prepared speech, but I will address a number of points that were made in the debate. First, I say to Ms Bradshaw that we will, of course, support the Alliance amendment. Turning now to the two lead governing parties of this place. Pat Sheehan began by describing how difficult it is to be in partnership with the DUP in government. Why has it taken 20 years to realise that? When it suits, the sun is shining; when it does not, they go into hiding. There are serious questions to be asked about where responsibility truly lies when taking on the privileged role of being in elected office and governing this place seriously, with all the various consequences that come with taking tough decisions. Sadly, that does not happen as often as it should here. I welcome the fact that Mr Sheehan's party has, following calls for reform from the SDLP and Alliance, accepted the need for reform and produced some documents. This place needs —.

Mr Sheehan: Will the Member give way?

Mr McCrossan: I will make some traction, Pat, and then I will let you in.

This place absolutely needs to be reformed. Anybody with a set of eyes and ears can recognise that this place is not functioning as it should.

I will move on to Mr Peter Martin. I am very sorry to hear that he is disappointed in the SDLP. Peter, if I were to tell you honestly how disappointed I am in the DUP, you would have a very sore head, because the reality is that your behaviour in government and your mistreatment of the unionist electorate through your abuse of power in the House are atrocious. You do not represent the entire unionist bloc, as you describe it. There are people within the unionist bloc who do not share a shred [Interruption.]

There are people within the unionist bloc who do not agree with any of the behaviour that you have been up to in the past number of weeks. It is ridiculous. If you are disappointed, let me state to you a point of my disappointment: a democratically elected party, which was the largest party here for almost 20 years, has been led by the nose by an unelected mouthpiece called Jamie Bryson — a man who has stood around winding everyone up —

Mr Brooks: You stood with Colin Duffy.

Mr McCrossan: — and has led you into this ridiculous mess.

Mr Brooks: You stood with Colin Duffy.

Mr Brett: Where is your mate, Colin Duffy?

Mr McCrossan: Brooksy, you could have had your say if you wanted it, but you did not speak in the debate.

Mr Brett: Where is your mate, Colin Duffy?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr McCrossan: You are always mouthing in the corner.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order. The Member will be heard. Go ahead, Daniel.

Mr McCrossan: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. You had your opportunity, Brooksy. You are a bit quiet on it today.

The reality is that the DUP is being led by an unelected leader in Jamie Bryson, and, if it is not that, we can turn to Reverend Gaston, in the corner — the proverb politician and, it turns out, Carla Lockhart's fanboy. Imagine that for a situation. In the House, the DUP kicks Sinn Féin, the SDLP, the UUP and Alliance. The only three people the DUP is not kicking are Mr Gaston, "Big Daddy" Jim Al and Jamie Bryson. [Interruption.]

It points to the reality of where your loyalties lie. [Interruption.]

Whilst, sometimes, I do not agree with the direction or policies of Sinn Féin, the truth is that, recently, the DUP's strategies have been absolutely shocking. I represent everybody in my community. [Laughter.]

Mr McCrossan: Mr Brett can laugh all he likes, because he is definitely a very confused individual about who he is.

Mr Brooks: What does that mean?

Mr McCrossan: I tell you this, very simply: in my constituency in Tyrone — you can ask Tom Buchanan about this — people do not care about orange and green issues. They care about the future; they want to live free from the past. Your party cannot get itself out of the very dark days from which you enjoyed glory. We are moving forward.

Mr Brooks: Road blocking.

Mr McCrossan: If you think that road blocking is the worst thing that ever happened here, Mr Brooks, go back and look over the past 20 years and at your episode in government. Look at RHI; look at Red Sky; look at the various corrupt policies and issues that have arisen from your party in government. You are not faultless. You broke the law, continually, so stop talking about a peaceful protest on the Garvaghy Road that was brought about

in response —.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr McCrossan: I will in a moment.

It was brought about in response to Jamie Bryson stoking up tension about a very painful wound that cost all of us — Protestant, unionist, Catholic and other. That is the truth. The DUP's behaviour this week has been shocking. [Interruption.]

I know first-hand that the DUP has done some damage, because its strategies are not working. [Interruption.]

It is, "All hail the leader —".

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr McCrossan: It is, "All hail the leader of the DUP", who is Mr Gaston, in the corner. Will youse wise up? Him and his one-man band, and you are taking your lead from him? It is utterly shocking. Then, Mr Brett has the cheek to stand up and slag off peacemakers and peace builders in the UUP and the SDLP when talking about the Good Friday Agreement. You are busy criticising the UUP, but the reality is that you could not wait to get into its seat of power. It was not about delivering anything. That is the truth. I remind Mr Brett that, while Mr Paisley and Mr Robinson were slagging off Trimble for talking to the SDLP when the SDLP was in conversations with Sinn Féin and the IRA at the time about peace,

his party was having quiet conversations with Sinn Féin and the IRA behind the scenes. That is the truth. You lambasted Mr Trimble and Reg Empey and others,

but you have a poor concept of where things are.

Here is the truth of what happened under the St Andrews Agreement. It was a carve-up for the DUP and Sinn Féin, and it was all about getting "Big Ian" into the First Minister's seat. It was never about anything else. It was never about making this place work. He was near his retirement, and he wanted a big fluffy job, so he took whatever came, and they carved it up between themselves.

The Good Friday Agreement was the tool to change this place. Do you know what? Your two parties unpicked it. The consequences for our people today have been profound, because this place has been collapsed for longer than it has sat.

Mr Brooks: You let the prisoners out.

Mr McCrossan: I heard it referred to earlier —.

Mr Brett: You collapsed it too.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order. The Member will be heard.

Mr McCrossan: I heard Peter Martin refer earlier to laws brought in by Westminster, including the abortion legislation. Why was that legislation brought in? It was brought in because you collapsed the Assembly.

Mr Brett: No, it was not, you idiot.

Mr McCrossan: You were sitting at home.

Mr Brett: You idiot. It was Sinn Féin.

Mr McCrossan: You were sitting at home. That is why the legislation came —

Mr Brett: You do not know your history.

Mr McCrossan: — in, yet here we have —.

Mr Brett: You do not know your history. Read from your speech.

Mr McCrossan: — Carla Lockhart's fanboy in the corner is calling for this —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order. Daniel, I ask you to take your seat. The debate is touching a nerve with some Members.

Mr Brooks: It clearly is over there.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Do not point either. I am asking for a bit of courtesy. Daniel McCrossan will be heard.

Mr Gaston: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I have been called some names in the Chamber today, but I put on record that I do like "Reverend Gaston", so when you are responding, it is "Reverend Gaston". [Laughter.]

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. Sit down. Go ahead, Daniel.

Mr McCrossan: "Pastor Gaston" may be more appropriate.

I will bring the debate back to what it is about. Everybody has rehearsed history throughout the debate, but there is one fundamental point to be made. There is common ground in this place. It has been sought out before, and it can be sought out again. We need to work together. We need to work together on issues that reflect and affect people's lives: not marching, not flags and not issues to do with a parade by the Orange Order down the Garvaghy Road, which was unnecessary and unjustified. It is about people in the here and now. It is about people in emergency waiting rooms who want care. It is about people who, just yesterday, got a cancer diagnosis. It is about people who cannot get a home. The real reason for having this place is not to point fingers at one another across the Chamber and talk about who did what, when they did it and why they did it. Rather, it is to move forward together. That is the fundamental principle

of the Good Friday Agreement.

There are parties that have presided over government here that have deliberately dismantled elements of that agreement. We need this place to work. Mr Gaston is constantly telling everybody, particularly the DUP, to collapse Stormont, yet he does not agree with very much that the British Government are doing. Is he saying that full authority should be handed over to the British Government, who have been an absolute disaster and cannot even run themselves? We have been through about seven Prime Ministers in the past few years. This place is what people elected us to. They did not elect us not to be here. They elected us to be here, to show leadership, to move forward and to build consensus, and we can build that consensus.

The real issues, however, are not the Orange Order or flags on lamp posts. Rather, the real issues are the health service, housing and people having a future in this place. It is about stopping young people leaving on planes. That is what this place is about. The Good Friday Agreement was a promise of something greater, something better and something for us all, and the DUP has unpicked it at every opportunity. It will get to the stage at which it is too late, because, after the next election, unless the DUP wises up, Pastor Gaston will be sitting where its Members are sitting today.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Can Members take their ease, please?

Mr O'Toole: I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed to allow 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. All other Members who speak will have five minutes.

Mr O'Toole: I am proud to move another motion. It follows neatly from the previous motion marking 20 years since the St Andrews Agreement, with all its flaws, and recognising the progress that we have made and that which we definitely have not made. After last night's difficult debate and the past few weeks of toxicity, we clearly need to refresh our politics and remind ourselves of the fundamental duty on those of us who have the privilege to serve in elected office, which is to serve the people and offer solutions for the future; not to divide, offer division and distraction and drag us back to the past. That is what this institution, which was created in 1998, was changed, not entirely for the better, in 2006 at St Andrews and still somehow exists today despite all its flaws, was supposed to be about: making decisions, sometimes difficult decisions. The problem is that we have not really made any serious decisions, so the big challenges get worse and the public get less and less interested in this place and buy in less and less to the idea that there is a point to this place existing at all.

I want to be clear and upfront that I believe in a new Ireland. With all due respect to the people who feel differently, my party and I do not think that Stormont, the Northern Ireland Assembly or our current framework will allow us to maximise our potential; we do not. We think that the best possible future for this place — Northern Ireland, the North or whatever you call it — and the whole island is a new Ireland where we are back inside the European Union. However, while we are here in this set-up, we can make it better.

We have a profound moral obligation to make this place and its public services better and to do as well by the people as we can. We must deliver the best possible services and work together to heal the divisions of the past and break down the divisions that have brought us so much tragedy. That is what we do every day by using our voice as a constructive Opposition. In many ways, our work as a constructive Opposition has been the most successful and meaningful outcome of the reform of these institutions. Even though it is uncomfortable for others in the Chamber and we are often pilloried for doing our job, we are proud to have done it.

Today, we bring forward not cheap, empty populism — we are not simply saying, "Whatever you're having yourself" or, Gay Byrne-style, "There's one for everybody in the audience" — but an acknowledgement that there is not one for everybody in the audience all the time and that, sometimes, politics is about decisions and prioritisation. With us in the Chamber we have a recently departed Health Minister and two Members who served in ministerial office: my colleague Mr Durkan and Ms Hargey, who was Communities Minister. They are three — I am not saying this simply to curry favour — able public servants.

A Member: Mr Frew.

Mr O'Toole: Mr Frew was, I believe, briefly a Minister. I meant no harm to Mr Frew in omitting him; it was just the brevity of his ministerial career.

They are public servants who, I think, genuinely want to make this place better and serious people who worked hard in ministerial office. This is not about individuals; it is about the structure of our politics, because it is clear that the way our politics works does not incentivise decision-making and priority setting. You only have to look at the record of the Executive thus far, some of which we talked about in the previous debate, to see that.

The first two years of the mandate were wasted in political stasis and crisis. We came back here in February 2024 with our party as the official Opposition, and we were proud to take on that role. The Executive, however, took nearly a year to agree a Programme of Government that is largely full of waffle and aspiration and has no clear targets and, at the first available opportunity, tried to collapse — certainly, lots of people, possibly including some in the Executive, want them to collapse — into disarray and disorder. That is not to say that there is perfect equality of responsibility on all parts of the Executive — it is clear that certain parties have done more blocking than others — but it is to say that there is a structural problem with our politics, which is that it does not prioritise delivery for the public. Nobody — nobody — can dispute that now. Our politics as it stands is not about delivery for the public, and that is why the public, whether they are unionist, nationalist or neither, are so frustrated.

What we are calling for today and what we will bring forward in our manifesto ahead of next spring is a commitment to building a new political consensus that may occasionally involve difficult decisions on difficult things. In our motion, we mention a couple of examples. That is not to prejudge a particular outcome or decision, but it is to say that there may be difficult decisions, one of which is the decision to invest in waste water infrastructure. That need not mean water charges, and I do not think that it would be acceptable to the public for it to mean water charges any time soon. However, I will say this: it might mean prioritising investment in waste water through increased borrowing from the British Government or by saying, "We want to prioritise this, and that will have to mean deprioritising investment in something else". We need to take that decision.

I will probably get some hard feedback telling me that it is all about the British Government not giving this place enough money. Here is the thing: that is part of the story. I do not dispute that the British Government underfund this place relative to Scotland and Wales, in part because there is no political incentive for them to offer us more money other than making us go away. However, that only underlines the importance of this place having a clear set of priorities and a plan for investment, because our argument to the Treasury and the British Government is undermined when we do not go with a clear and coherent set of asks and priorities. Whether it is waste water, building social homes or investing in the reform of our health service, we need to be clear about what we want to do with the money, and the parties in the Executive need to sign up to that. The Opposition have only ever encouraged the Executive to be clear about prioritisation. Do not simply fall out theatrically over stuff that you do not agree on: set a clear list of priorities for the public and say, "This is what we are going to do. This is how we are going to fix the health service. This is how we are going to repair our waste water infrastructure and build social homes. This is how we are going to fix Lough Neagh".

It will involve difficult decisions at times, but that is what politics is about: leadership and taking responsibility. If you accept office and accept the wages, you have to accept the responsibility. Part of the reason why the public do not trust us is that no one here accepts responsibility. It is always somebody else's fault. We need to accept responsibility. That is not the same thing as saying, "We have enough money. We should just accept what London gives us". That is not the case. We need to take responsibility for building the argument and setting out a vision, a plan and a set of priorities, which will sometimes involve difficult decisions. A couple of weeks ago in the Chamber, I gave the example of my father, who went to a local hospital that was not equipped for his needs. He nearly died, and he would have died had he stayed there. He got a worse outcome than he would have had if he had gone to a specialist stroke unit earlier. I commend the former Health Minister and his successor, who have done so much to deliver 24-hour thrombectomy care, which is a real testament to how this place can improve lives and services.

Here is the thing: we have to be honest with people about those difficult things, such as how hospital services are allocated. That is not to say that local representatives will not stand up and champion local services; that is their job. In some cases, particularly Daisy Hill Hospital, of which my colleague Justin McNulty has been a champion, there is a cross-border element whereby a hospital is underused because we ignore tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people who might use the facility but do not because of a border. It means that, occasionally, politicians will not be able to get by by simply telling the public, "It is grand. Whatever you are having yourself. Sure, I want that too". If everything is put into the manifesto, no decisions are made and no responsibility is taken, things will get progressively worse, and that is part of what is happening in our politics. If we are honest with ourselves, we all know that. We will have to occasionally make some difficult decisions.

For those of us who want to build a new Ireland, it is a choice that we will have to make. I believe in a new Ireland because I believe in taking responsibility on this island. I do not think that the people who make the big decisions on tax and spending and the strategic decisions in London care particularly about this place or prioritise it. I do not think that they do. I think that lots of unionists think that too. That is why, ultimately, I believe in a new Ireland, where we take responsibility for ourselves, but we will not get there unless we start taking responsibility here first, proving to one another that we want to build something new in this place.

Next year, there is an election, and, hopefully, after that, there will be a Government and a multi-year Budget and a Programme for Government with clear priorities and trade-offs, with honesty with the public about the decisions that we need to take to improve people's lives. This mandate has thus far, I am afraid to say, been a failure in that regard. We are more than halfway through the financial year, and there is no Budget. The Programme for Government is a dead letter full of aspiration and waffle. The public have completely lost trust not just in the ability but in the willingness of the Executive parties to deliver. The next time must be different. We do not have a choice: we need to get real, take responsibility and be honest with the people whom we serve.

Miss Hargey: Building political consensus was a central part of the Good Friday Agreement, as endorsed by the people across Ireland. At its heart were power-sharing, the protection of minority rights and, of course, the three key strands of power-sharing institutions, North/South bodies and east-west bodies. Sinn Féin embraced the agreement because it understood that progress requires compromise, courage and a willingness to build a different future. The DUP opposed the agreement in 1998; that is a matter of historical record. The question now is whether all parties are genuinely committed to the agreement's principles of partnership, equality and mutual respect.

Power-sharing cannot work if one tradition's rights are respected while another's are treated as optional. Consensus does not mean abandoning our beliefs. I believe in constitutional change on the island, just as Matthew stated, because I believe that it would improve people's quality of life. It would be better for people here socially and economically. It would, however, also mean respecting one another and governing in the interests of all.

Equality cannot be accepted only when it is politically convenient. The rights of women, our LGBTQ+ community, Irish language speakers and workers must also be protected. We must ask whether the Assembly will advance equality or continue to see commitments on issues such as workers' rights, environmental protections, Irish language rights or the basic right of girls to wear trousers to school blocked by those who obstructed a bill of rights and a Civic Forum. Consensus must also mean delivering real change in people's lives. That means a properly funded health service, fair pay, affordable childcare, secure housing and decent public services. The workers who keep our hospitals running, teach our children and care for our most vulnerable deserve dignity, fair pay and decent conditions. We cannot expect workers to carry the financial pressures indefinitely or expect services to recover without investment and long-term planning. That is exactly why the Executive are right to challenge the British Government over their underfunding of our services. For transformation truly to happen — we all agree that it needs to happen in our public services — it must be properly funded and sustainable.

Despite our differences, progress is possible. Last week, we saw Minister Liz Kimmins and Minister Andrew Muir successfully challenge the A5 judgement, which will allow that road to be built. In the Chamber only yesterday, we saw progressive legislation on tackling holiday hunger for 90,000 children, supporting Irish-medium education and developing sustainable drainage programmes to support communities move to the next legislative stage. Alongside that, we had announcements of £2·3 million in funding for small businesses and £1 million to be invested directly in community transport. Those are only some of the practical examples of politics delivering for our people.

The future cannot be built by resisting change or treating equality as a threat. That is key. People often say that we need to get on with the business of delivering on health and social care and all the other issues: that is, of course, important, but so is challenging inequality and those who try to threaten it. One does not have to be done without the other. The two issues are just as important, and it is important for me to state that.

Sinn Féin wants to see the Assembly work. We want to see an Executive who deliver and a society in which everyone can live with dignity, equality and respect, because that is fundamental to dealing with the social and economic issues that our communities face. The Good Friday Agreement gave us that framework, and it is now our responsibility to honour it and see its full implementation. That is an important point. The bill of rights has continued to be obstructed, as has the Civic Forum, which would have allowed citizens from across our communities to work together on some of the challenges that face this institution and our society as a whole. It was obstructed by the same people who want to obstruct other progressive legislation. As we move forward, I hope that we build the key foundations of rights, equality and respect for all.

Ms Forsythe: It was pretty impossible to keep a straight face during the leader of the Opposition's opening remarks, when he talked once again about "constructive Opposition" and the lack of "toxicity". Maybe he should rewind half an hour to the outburst from his colleague Daniel McCrossan. Toxicity spewed out of him in all directions, and his feelings, especially towards unionists, were made clear. The leader of the Opposition comes here to try to patronise others. He talks about removing toxicity, but he should look towards his own Benches. The SDLP's mask has slipped and not for the first time in recent weeks. I will not be shy in calling that out. I know that the leader of the Opposition can see and hear for himself what comes from those who sit around him.

It was also patronising of him to revise his narrative of a new Ireland: that is dead in the water. Look at the couple of weeks that we have had. We had SDLP members standing arm in arm with dissident republicans, showing us all exactly what they stand for. That will not cut it, unless you want to completely isolate and exclude every unionist across the country. It is completely disingenuous to open the debate by trying to act like the grown-ups in the room.

We are talking about building political consensus: I am sure that everyone would like to be able to sign up to that. However, there has to be honesty. There was some political consensus in the Chamber that all Members here respected the courts, but that evaporated when Sinn Féin, led by Michelle O'Neill, blocked the Garvaghy Road. Members must begin by believing that we are all equal under the law and equally subject to it. If we cannot find consensus on that, it is difficult to see how consensus could be found on huge issues like health transformation. After all, the previous Health Minister, who is here and whom I respect a lot from his time in the role, found out that it is difficult to find that political consensus even within parties.

Everyone here accepts that there is not enough money, and I will not rehearse a lot of the debates that we have had around that recently. Northern Ireland is being asked to deliver first-class public services with second-class funding. Reforming our public services is necessary, but it requires investment and cannot become a cover for managed decline. Northern Ireland needs a sustainable Budget that protects our public services, not a multi-year settlement that simply locks in inadequate funding and deeper cuts and acts like a sticking plaster year after year. We need to be able to plan. We need forward thinking. We need to be able to establish that knowing what is coming for a number of years ahead.

The gap between what our hospitals, schools and front-line services need and what Treasury is providing is growing year after year. It is no longer sustainable to make the books balance without any additional funding. Resource has been offered, but it falls well short of easing the pressures in even one Department let alone across the entire Northern Ireland Executive. Anyone who says that we just need to get on and agree can explain the cuts that will come as a consequence. Short-term funding fixes are not enough. The Education Minister alone faces a shortfall that runs into hundreds of millions of pounds, which would require more than 6,000 teacher redundancies. Gordon Lyons sought a better deal for Northern Ireland from the Chancellor, especially with regard to borrowing powers to build houses, and we will continue to champion that. The DUP has pressed the Secretary of State to build on the discussions that have already been held and to help to deliver long-term financial stability.

Essential funding must not be made conditional on weakening the safeguards at the heart of power-sharing and political consent. Make no mistake: we want to get to the position where we can agree a multi-year Budget that works for everyone. However, John O'Dowd's proposed Budget, which was set out earlier this year, is not sufficiently linked to Programme for Government priorities. Can the Opposition see how that would be harmful? If the Executive have agreed a Programme for Government, it should follow that the Budget reflects the priorities set out in it. However, that Budget does not prioritise social housing. That is why that Budget is a problem: it does not ensure that money would go towards one of our headline targets. There is insufficient capital allocation to enable our Communities Minister to meet the PFG housing targets. Do the Opposition acknowledge that, even though they are recognised as Executive priorities, there is a lack of dedicated funding for the anti-poverty strategy and the disability and work strategy? Is that a Budget that they want the Communities Minister to support? The provision for special educational needs is wholly inadequate despite that being a key Programme for Government priority. Under the draft Budget, the Education Minister would need to make savings of approximately £826 million in 2026-27 —.

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

Ms Bradshaw: I support the motion, although I find some elements of it vague and contradictory. I was hoping that the proposer would clear those up for me. Unfortunately, he did not.

No one can dispute that Northern Ireland's DUP/Sinn Féin duopoly leaves increasingly difficult challenges untouched while it engages in a series of tactics designed to block progress and divert attention. Unfortunately, we have not seen anything different in recent weeks. The proposer of the motion talked about setting out what we should be doing and investing in in Northern Ireland. Two and a half years after devolution was restored, it is lamentable that we still have not seen the Investment 2050 strategy presented to the Assembly, for that would set out a long-term vision for investment in our education facilities, housing and hospitals. The problem, however, is that the motion calls for "continued political disagreement" not to be a barrier to reform: how do we get consensus if there is that disagreement?

Ten years ago, all parties signed up to the seven Bengoa principles. Those included moving towards integrated systems; reducing per-capita costs; expanding out-of-hospital care; and the impossibility of maintaining current services on current budgets. Yet, in fact, every time a move is taken in that direction — a move that inevitably involves closing services at one location in order to make them more integrated and cost-effective at another or to shift them out of a hospital setting — we see a host of representatives protesting against it.

Mr O'Toole: I thank the Member for giving way. I do not know specifically what contradictions the Member is talking about, but, just to clarify on the line that says, "continued political disagreement" not being "a barrier to necessary reform", we are endeavouring to say that, where political disagreement should end or cease is around a specific set of reforms and targeted interventions in key policy areas. There will, obviously, be political disagreement not just on the constitution but left, right and on a range of things. However, on a finite number of issues, there needs to be consensus and, ergo, an end to political disagreement or, at least, a managing of political disagreement so that you can deliver, for example, healthcare reform.

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

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you. I suppose that that is why I raised the issue of the lack of the investment strategy, because we need to move beyond each political cycle. Civil servants will come and go and Budgets will fluctuate, but we need a course of action to ensure that this generation and future generations have the facilities and public services that they need.

The motion also talks about:

with pupil numbers declining sharply. The fact is that it is not sustainable, yet, again, every time rationalisation is attempted, you will see the same sorts of protest; indeed, you will even see the odd petition in the Chamber. We need to be clear that it is easy to talk about difficult decisions and moving beyond the electoral cycle, but are we, including those who tabled the motion, really prepared to do it? The problem is that, if you have backed your local school, your local hospital or your local community in opposition to significant changes in how we fund our water and sewerage infrastructure, how will you sign up to consensus that means shifting services away from your local hospital, merging local schools and changing fundamentally the way that we support and fund NI Water?

Mr McGrath: Will the Member give way?

Ms Bradshaw: Yes.

Mr McGrath: It is just a quick one. Do you acknowledge the difference between the collapse of a service and a planned transformation? What we are seeing, in the greater part, is the collapse of services, whereas, if we had what we are talking about, which is a planned transformation, that will be all of us moving in the direction and, hopefully, not doing what you have referenced.

Ms Bradshaw: I agree. It is incredibly frustrating, because we have known for decades that we needed to plan our school estate and our hospital infrastructure.

When parties all come together to oppose even the most obvious change, like merging dilapidated minor injury units into better-resourced, full-time, urgent care centres a few miles away, that impedes any consensus for meaningful transformation. If the only consensus that can be delivered is not to have to face up to local pressure groups, the challenging problems that the proposer refers to will inevitably go unanswered.

The proposer will get no argument from me or my party colleagues that it is not a key requirement, if we are to have any hope of addressing more challenging issues and delivering meaningful transformation, that transformation take place. In the previous debate, we talked about the institutional reforms that are needed: I will not rehearse those, but the sectarian veto system means that blockage and delay predominate where real progress is needed. I would genuinely be interested to hear more from the proposer about how they intend to face up to local pressure when key difficult decisions have to be made.

I recognise that people are instinctively risk-averse and that it is easier to defend the status quo than present a vision for something different. However, the status quo should not be a comfortable option for us as legislators and political leaders. We need to move beyond that position to one of discomfort. Talking is easy; acting is trickier. I wonder how many of us will grasp that in the months and years ahead.

Mr Nesbitt: I note that the motion carries a desire to build political consensus. In that regard, every Member of the House should be aware of these words:

Members will recognise that as paragraph 2 of the 1998 agreement. Paragraph 3 goes on to say:

Every Member should be aware of those words, but are they? Based on the previous two debates in the Chamber, I think that that is a valid question. The motion talks of committing to:

What in God's name was wrong with the old one?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Colin McGrath to conclude and wind up the debate. Colin, you have 10 minutes.

Mr McGrath: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I sometimes wonder whether we have forgotten what this place is for. Not why we created it — we know the history — but what it is actually for. Somewhere along the way, we appear to have confused the sharing of power with the exercise of leadership. We have become very good at dividing up responsibility, but we are less good at accepting it. We are very good at identifying the failures of government but less enthusiastic about acknowledging that those who identify the failures are often the very people who are responsible for the governing.

All the while, the public watch as Ministers blame other Ministers, Executive parties attack decisions made by the Executive that they belong to, and political representatives demand solutions only to discover a hundred reasons why those solutions cannot be delivered. We have reached the point where almost everyone in government wants to behave like an opposition, except, of course, when there is a little bit of credit to be claimed. What must the public make of that? What about the woman who is waiting for surgery, the young couple who are unable to build a home because our waste water infrastructure cannot cope or the school principal who wonders whether their school has a future? Those people do not need another diagnosis of the problems; they need a Government who are prepared to do something.

John Hume spent his political life challenging the belief that our differences were greater than our common humanity. He understood that politics was not about defeating the other side but about creating a society in which everyone could flourish. He understood that agreement was not the abandonment of principle but that which allowed principles to become progress. There is a difference between a political system that is designed to accommodate disagreement and a political culture that has become dependent on it. Our institutions were designed to ensure that no community could dominate another. That was necessary and historic, but we cannot allow the protections that were created to safeguard peace to become an excuse for the absence of progress. The Good Friday Agreement was never intended to be the finishing line of our political ambition. It was meant to be the starting point. Yet, nearly 30 years later, we are still debating the same problems, promising the same reforms and postponing the same decisions. That is not because we do not know what needs to change but because nobody wants to carry the political cost of changing it. Ten years ago, Bengoa told us that change was everybody's business. Ten years. How many strategies, reviews and promises of health transformation have we heard since? How many political parties have told us that health is their number-one priority? That should shame every one of us.

I am not suggesting that we should all agree. Robust debate is the lifeblood of democracy. Arguments happen in every legislature in the world, and they should happen here. We should challenge decisions and disagree passionately, but there is a world of difference between challenging somebody's politics and attacking the person. We have seen extraordinary exchanges between the parties leading our Executive: the First Minister accusing her partners in government of being anti-Irish; and the deputy First Minister accusing the First Minister of following the law of the mob. What does any of that achieve? Does it get one patient off a waiting list? Does it build one additional home? Of course it does not. The problem is not disagreement but that we appear to have lost the ability to disagree well without undermining the relationships on which this entire system of government depends.

The people watching are not political spectators; they are the people who are paying the price. I therefore have to ask a fundamental question: does anybody here actually want this place to work — not simply plod along until the next election, not provide a platform for constitutional arguments, but work to deliver and to improve people's lives? I ask my fellow nationalists this: does anyone seriously believe that a non-functioning North moves us one step closer to a new Ireland? Does demonstrating that we cannot govern effectively together inspire confidence in our ability to build a shared future? I ask my unionist colleagues this: will a non-functioning Executive secure Northern Ireland's place in the Union? Does political instability strengthen confidence in the institutions that you wish to preserve? We all know the answer. Whatever constitutional future we believe in, we have a responsibility to the people living here today. The child waiting for treatment cannot wait for a border poll. A family needing a home cannot wait for the constitutional question to be settled. An older person waiting for a care package does not care whether the responsible Minister is nationalist, unionist or neither. Their needs are not constitutional; they are human, and meeting those needs is our responsibility.

We have to make this place work, even when it is difficult, even when it is deeply uncomfortable and even when compromise challenges positions that we have defended for years. That is leadership. We cannot demand that one Health Minister transform an entire service while Executive colleagues wait to see which decisions become unpopular or what LucidTalk says next. We cannot demand difficult choices to be made and then abandon a Minister when the results of those choices arrive on our doorsteps. The same applies to waste water infrastructure and our schools. They are shared problems demanding shared solutions. Refusing to make a decision is itself a decision, and, too often, it is the worst one.

Making this place work also demands institutional reform. The Good Friday Agreement was a remarkable achievement. Protecting it does not mean pretending that how our institutions operate must remain unchanged for ever. We must examine how the Executive make decisions, how collective responsibility works and how political disagreements can be managed without paralysing government. Reforming our institutions to make them work is not a betrayal of the peace process; it is a fulfilment of its promise. There are real questions about the future of Stormont. We should not dismiss those concerns, because the greatest threat to public confidence is not that politicians disagree but that people begin to believe that it makes no difference whether this place functions at all. That should frighten every single Member of the House. We talk endlessly about restoring public trust, but trust cannot be demanded. It cannot be manufactured through press releases, slogans or photographs of Ministers standing together. Trust is earned through decisions, delivery and accepting responsibility. We cannot ask the public to believe in government if government itself appears unwilling to govern. That is why the motion calls for a new political consensus, shared priorities, a new Programme for Government and a multi-year Budget — not another document filled with aspirations but a commitment to make difficult decisions together and to stand over them together.

We inherited institutions that people made extraordinary sacrifices to create, and I refuse to accept that the limit of our ambition should be simply keeping the doors of those institutions open. We are here to serve those who voted for us, those who voted against us and those who may have given up believing that politics can make any difference. John Hume helped to teach this society that our differences need not determine our destiny, and we must now prove that those differences need not prevent us from governing. We have spent almost 30 years learning how to share power. It is time that we learned how to share responsibility, because the future of this place will not be secured by the strength of our arguments about its constitutional status; it will be shaped by whether people believe that these institutions can make their lives better. That responsibility belongs to every one of us in the Chamber, and that is why the SDLP brought the motion today.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, the Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The next item of business will commence following Question Time, when the first Member to be called will be Sinéad McLaughlin.

Mr Speaker: Question 4 has been withdrawn.

Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): The works at Four Winds and Newton Park are developer-led works associated with planning approval for neighbouring residential developments. The scope of the works includes widening the existing roundabout; increasing capacity from one lane to two running lanes on all approaches; making alterations to footways; and enhancing pedestrian facilities and road signage. In overseeing the works, my Department must ensure that its statutory responsibilities for the public road network are properly discharged, including that the works be carried out safely and in accordance with the relevant approvals and requirements.

Owing to the complexity of the scheme, a series of lane and road closures has been necessary in order to facilitate safely the programme of works over a six- to seven-month period. As with all developer-led construction, the timescale for completion is dependent on the developer. The scheme is currently programmed for completion in January 2027, however.

Ms Nicholl: I thank the Minister for her response. The works at the Four Winds roundabout have been extremely disruptive to the school run, to businesses, which are losing money, and to bus services. How can the Minister's Department hold developers to account to make sure that the works are delivered in a timely fashion? Moreover, how can that be communicated to my constituents, who have been left unsure about what is happening?

Ms Kimmins: I hope that my previous answer has provided some kind of assurance about when they can expect the works to be completed, although, obviously, we keep the timescale under review. I appreciate the disruption that such schemes can cause, particularly given their complexity. If there are any unforeseen issues, we will endeavour to ensure that the community is kept informed. That is difficult, because the works are developer-led, but, where possible, I will ensure that my officials liaise with the developer to keep lines of communication open.

Miss Hargey: As you said, Minister, that work is being done by a developer, but it builds on the road safety work that your Department is doing in the wider Four Winds and Carryduff areas. Will you be working with the developer to ensure that that January deadline is met? If there is any potential slippage, will you insist that the developer keep the residents up to date?

Ms Kimmins: Ensuring that people are kept informed and that disruption is minimised is the least that I would expect. If, however, that has not been happening, or if there are difficulties, I will ensure that my officials liaise with the developer to make sure that any further issues are communicated to residents as effectively as possible.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, as has been said, the area is part of our constituency in which there is a huge amount of developer-led development. The public have to put up with a lot of disruption, but there are also real concerns about road safety, as the Member who spoke previously mentioned. I welcome the confirmation that you have provided about the work on the Four Winds roundabout. I have asked you before about progress on enhanced pedestrian safety measures at the Carryduff roundabout, where an elderly lady lost her life earlier this year. Do you have an update to give on the progress made on such measures there, where there really is a pedestrian safety issue?

Ms Kimmins: I appreciate that the Member has raised that issue previously. I do not have an update in front of me, but I am happy to obtain one from officials to find out how things have progressed since we spoke previously about the issue. I can then respond to the Member in writing, if he is happy with that approach.

Ms Kimmins: The £816,000 major resurfacing scheme on the Ballyrobin Road is a clear example of the significant investment that is being made in order to improve the condition and resilience of our road network. I recognise the importance of maintaining and improving that valuable asset. A considerable volume of repairs and resurfacing work has already been done.

We all want our roads to be better. To achieve that, we must be ambitious and innovative in equal measure, using the resources that we have in a more targeted and effective way. The Member will be aware that the new road maintenance strategy was published on 27 July this year, and it sets out how we can get there. We are moving in a new direction: one that will lead to a better quality of maintenance and longer-lasting repairs. That is certainly my focus and priority. We will harness the latest technology to target resources at where they are needed most in order to deliver the best value for public money.

We have around 26,000 kilometres of roads across the network, so there is no quick fix for addressing every defect on every road. There will always be a need for reactive maintenance to ensure that roads are kept as safe as is reasonably possible and to address defects that do occur. I have put a particular focus in the strategy on preventative measures, which involve intervening in a more planned way in order to improve a road's structural integrity. Those measures are capital-funded.

The three key principles at the heart of that strategy, which are aimed at taking that preventative approach, are: higher-quality maintenance; more timely and durable interventions; and better targeting of work where it is needed most. That is supported by new technology, including the full digital survey of the road network. Work is ongoing to assess the survey data so that the Department has a detailed baseline of the condition of the network in its entirety, which will help to identify were problems are most severe; where deterioration is emerging; and where intervention, taken at the right time, may prevent more costly repairs being needed later. The strategy also embeds environmental and financial sustainability into our approach. That preventative maintenance will enable better long-term targeting of funding, and I hope that Members will start to see the benefits of it in the not-so-distant future.

Mr Clarke: Minister, thank you for the investment in the Ballyrobin Road: it is long overdue and very welcome. Of course, most Members could talk about examples in their constituencies. As part of your innovation, you split the schemes for the B52 Portglenone Road at Randalstown into three. Every day, I go home by the last and most impactful section of that road, at Randalstown. Potholes are being marked there almost daily. That section was to be resurfaced three years ago. It is a main trunk road, and the noise of the vehicles impacts on the people who live in the houses on that road. Will you intervene to see what can be done to give those residents peace and to make the road safer for those who use it?

Ms Kimmins: I can ask my officials to look specifically at that scheme. I am sure that the Member will appreciate that I do not have the detail here.

I appreciate the Member's comments, because they reflect the work that has been done to try to get to grips with the significant deterioration that we have seen on our road network. I hope that it reassures Members to know that we are doing what I said we would do. There is no doubt that there is still a lot to do, but hopefully we are starting to see the benefits.

I will be happy to get back to the Member directly on the specific scheme that he mentioned.

Mr Boylan: Minister, as you are aware, British Government austerity has decimated the DFI Roads workforce. We can see the impact of that on the quality of our roads. What difference will the road worker competition make in improving preventative maintenance on our road network?

Ms Kimmins: We understand the budgetary situation. It has been the same way for many years, and that is the fundamental reason that a Budget has not been agreed. All Executive parties and Ministers are united when it comes to the fact that we need a fair Budget that will help us to deliver good public services. What we have had for many years has not allowed us to deliver that in the way that we would want to.

I have made an effort to ensure that I use the funding that is available in the best way possible, given the issues that we have had over many years. Part of that is rebuilding my in-house workforce by holding the most successful road worker recruitment campaign in over a decade. Up to 90 new road workers will strengthen front-line delivery this year by increasing capacity to undertake timely preventative maintenance and responsive road repairs, improving quality control and enabling resources to be deployed more flexibly in response to fluctuating and seasonal demand, so that, as Mr Clarke mentioned, we can get out to things sooner, rather than when they have got to their worst state.

The additional capacity will also enhance resilience for winter service operations, particularly at this time of year. As we move into the autumn and winter period, we see the impact that deteriorating weather can have. It will enhance our capacity for emergency responses to storms and flooding while reducing reliance on external contractors for high-priority work. That, in itself, should create savings. The importance cannot be overstated, because having in-house capacity enables us to respond more efficiently and effectively and to ensure that the work has a long-term impact.

Mr McReynolds: Minister, you will remember that, last winter, 50,000 road defects were detected. How is your Department working to reduce the figure this year?

Ms Kimmins: As I said, the strategy sets out very clearly, in three or four lines, what we are doing to try to get ahead of that. A key thing that I have done this year, even within the constrained budget, is front-load my budget for road maintenance, ensuring that we have an increased budget at the start of the year to enable us to prepare. What we saw, in particular last year and the year before, was that more extreme weather conditions, including higher rainfall and more storms, have a massive impact on our road network. I want to build resilience into the road network before we get to that point. We had a brilliant summer: I hope that Members saw a lot of repair and resurfacing activities on our roads over the drier months. We heard of a scheme in Mr Clarke's constituency of almost £1 million. I hope that that sets out clearly the effort that I have been making to ensure that we can make a tangible difference, get ahead and demonstrate that we are doing more preventative work instead of reactive work, because that is not cost-effective. It is something that we have had to deal with for many years under temporary service and all the things that we have dealt with as a result of the lack of funding that the Executive have received. I hope, and have confidence in the fact that preventative work, coupled with the other work that we are doing through our different approach to road maintenance, including the use of digital technology and enhancing our in-house workforce, for instance, will make a major difference. I hope that we start to see those figures come down as soon as possible.

Mr McNulty: Will the Minister's Department's new digital mapping system facilitate an assessment of the standard of works for road resurfacing schemes? Will it facilitate a league table of where the roads are worst? I am sure that the Minister will agree that the state of the roads in our Newry and Armagh constituency leaves a lot to be desired.

Ms Kimmins: There are two questions there, but I am happy to answer both. First, yes, the digital survey is exactly for that purpose. We will have a full survey of our road network annually. We have not had that before. Previously, it depended on people going out to inspect roads physically. The digital system removes the over-reliance on our staff doing that. We are getting a more in-depth insight into the condition of our roads, and we are seeing where roads are likely to deteriorate before they reach the worst stage of deterioration. That enables us to plan on a longer-term basis and to target funding where we know that it will be needed. As part of the new system, there will be an ability to see online the location of the roads that are in the worst conditions, to which we will be able to target resources.

Secondly, you talked about our constituency. I am certainly seeing a lot more activity. The southern division has got a significant proportion of the funding that has been made available, for those reasons. We are trying to target it where it is needed most. That could be said across the board. Over the past 18 or 19 months, since I have been in post, a lot of questions have been asked in the House about how money is allocated. We will have a tool that will enable us to see where it is needed most. That will help to dictate where funding goes so that it is used in the best possible way and that we are targeting the worst roads across the North, regardless of which division they are in. I hope that that gives the Member confidence that we are listening and looking at how we can do things differently, because we know that, over the past 10 or 15 years, the way in which we have been working and the funding that has been available have not been delivering the results that the public expect. We are making efforts to ensure that that is improved.

Ms Kimmins: Along with the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, I am co-chair of the coastal forum. When the forum last met, in November 2025, good progress had been made. The coastal forum working group will produce a stocktake report on the current work programme and make recommendations for the 2026-2031 work programme. That will provide an opportunity to set priorities for the next five years and consider new work areas. My Department also inspects and assesses the impact of coastal erosion on the public road network, including its sea walls and other coastal infrastructure where it meets the coastline, and will make use of any relevant information from the lidar survey.

Where coastal erosion or flooding impacts directly on key infrastructure, such as roads, railways and the Department's sea defences, those assets are managed through a programme of regular inspection and appropriate maintenance. My Department's responsibilities for coastal management are limited to approximately 110 kilometres of defences for coastal roads, 26 kilometres of coastal sea defences, two tidal barriers and around 34 kilometres of sea defences protecting the rail network. Those are maintained as necessary to ensure safe operation and to mitigate, where practicable, the impacts of climate change.

My Department is responsible for only a small section of the Donaghadee sea wall between Bridge Street and Harbour Lane. The wider harbour area is owned by Ards and North Down Borough Council and designated as a listed structure. Departmental expenditure has therefore related to reactive repairs following storm damage. After the February collapse, the Department acted promptly to protect public safety, reinstate the damaged section and inspect the remaining Department-owned wall, with no further actionable defects identified.

Mr Martin: I thank the Minister for her answer. I think that it was no, but she did not really say that. Minister, you did, however, reference the coastal forum, which you co-chair with the AERA Minister. As far as I am aware, that has met once in the past two and a half years. Donaghadee urgently needs upgraded coastal defences to protect both the harbour and, as you mentioned, the part of the A2 that is your Department's responsibility, and no one is taking action. What concrete actions will you affirm to me to alleviate my concerns and those of my constituents about that particular stretch of road which, as you said, you have responsibility for?

Ms Kimmins: I think that I have made it clear that, where we are responsible, we will take action. We will be taking action on the issues that are within our remit. The coastal forum had not sat for many years, and the AERA Minister and I reinstated it last year. Whilst we may not have met formally as Ministers, a lot of work is coming out of that, and we are due to meet again soon. If there are any other issues that were not addressed in my previous answer, I am happy to come back on them to the Member directly. I know that he has submitted questions for written answer, and I have responded to those in recent days. I do appreciate the challenges, and I know that there are gaps in terms of who has responsibility. That is a challenge for everyone, but hopefully we can find a way forward. As we see more and more storms and their impact, particularly on coastal areas, that is very important.

Mr Boggs: Minister, I am aware that you recently made a capital investment of £1·2 million in the Barmouth moles in Castlerock, which was very much welcomed by that community. Can you outline the health and safety reasons for that investment?

Ms Kimmins: I was delighted to be down there to see the completion of the works at the Barmouth moles, and what a beautiful part of the country it is. That came about after engineering surveys found substantial degradation and displacement of the protective rock armour, which left the concrete structures increasingly exposed to wave action, saltwater weathering and further cracking. Without that intervention and with continued deterioration, there was a real risk of structural failure, which would mean displaced rock and debris potentially making the entrance to the River Bann unsafe or impassable for commercial and recreational vessels. Failure of the moles could also result in stronger currents and more severe wave action, particularly during storm and high tides, presenting a direct danger to people who live, work or undertake activities near the river and coast. It is a very busy coastal area. Structural failure would also restrict the discharge of water from the Lower Bann through the Barmouth and increase the risk of sudden or severe flooding along the Lower Bann and in Coleraine. That has the potential to endanger people's homes, businesses and the road and the railway line between Coleraine and Castlerock, impeding access for emergency services. The works reinstated approximately 7,500 tons of rock armour around the concrete moles, maintaining their structural integrity and protective function for an estimated 25 to 30 years. Having visited it both before and after the work, I know that it is superb. It is a beautiful part of our country. The work that was done was absolutely essential, but, aesthetically, it is gorgeous and a credit to everybody who has been involved in ensuring that it happened.

Mr McMurray: Minister, you touched on this in your answer to Mr Martin, and I will delve a bit deeper. What actions is your Department taking to improve climate resilience in our road network? In my constituency of South Down, we get flooding both from the coast and from the mountains. We have coastal flooding and rain flooding, which put our roads under stress.

Ms Kimmins: As the Member will know, a multi-agency and cross-departmental response is needed in preparation for the continuing impacts of climate change. My Department is the lead Department on some of the weather emergencies, and we have seen that in the past. We work very closely with the Member's party colleague the AERA Minister and with others, including local councils, to look at all of those issues. Where we have experience and where there are challenges, we work to see how we can address them.

Climate change underpins a lot of the work that we are doing, particularly around flood risk management and the impact of storms. It is Flood Awareness Week this week, so we have been doing some work on how individuals can be prepared for the risk of flooding and protect themselves, their homes and their businesses. We are also working with other Departments, including the Department for the Economy, on flood protection measures for businesses. A pilot scheme was launched recently in my own town, Newry. We have been working on flood alleviation schemes for Downpatrick, Newry, Portadown and Antrim etc. All of that work is fundamental to not only building resilience but protecting homes, businesses, people and all of our infrastructure.

There is no one key action there; we are continuously taking on a range of actions. We will do more work in the time ahead to demonstrate to the wider community what that involves, including the level of multi-agency and cross-departmental work that will be required.

Mr Speaker: I thank Members for their questions on greater Donaghadee. [Laughter.]

Question 4 has been withdrawn.

Ms Kimmins: I thought that you were going to say that we were moving on to topical questions. [Laughter.]

I understand how important the yLink scheme is for young people, especially those accessing education, employment and training. Translink's equality impact assessment (EQIA) consultation on the proposed change has now closed, and it is considering the responses. My Department has engaged closely with Translink throughout that process, and my position remains that public transport should be affordable and accessible, particularly given the ongoing cost-of-living pressures. I froze fares for two years in a row because I believe that public transport should be accessible to and affordable for all.

It is important to say that no decisions have been taken in respect of Translink’s consultation on the yLink concession or on the other proposals that Translink has put forward. As the Member will be aware, we currently have no agreed Executive Budget, and the Executive are united in our negotiations with the British Treasury for a fairer funding settlement. One of the reasons for that is that these are the types of cuts that could come from the Budget settlement that is being offered to us. I expect Translink to give full consideration to the consultation responses. Last week, I met with trade union representatives to discuss that issue and the other proposals. I know that there is deep concern about what the implementation of those cuts would mean. I share those concerns, and I will continue to work with Translink to ensure that we do everything that we can to avoid their coming to pass.

Ms Hunter: Thank you so much, Minister. Students in my constituency who are studying at Ulster University in Coleraine have told me that affordable travel is a true lifeline. [Interruption.]

Pardon me, that is my phone. Apologies. Have you had any engagement with students across the North on those matters and the detriment that would be caused to them by the loss of the discount?

Ms Kimmins: I have not had direct engagement on that, but I have been contacted by quite a number of young people, and I know the strength of feeling out there. I completely understand the impact that this will have on young people and, indeed, their families. The scheme gives young people an element of independence, in that they can get about by themselves without worrying about the cost or having to rely on others. It is important to emphasise that I feel that the scheme is essential, and I hope that we can get to a point where the budget is available to ensure that it continues, because I know that the impacts of losing the discount would be far-reaching.

My message to young people today is this: I hear you, I see you, and I will do everything that I can to ensure that those discounts are protected as far as possible. We will continue to work very closely with Translink in that vein.

Mrs Dillon: As the mother of a young student who uses public transport, I can see that it is beneficial to get into the habit of using public transport. In a recent meeting that I had with Translink, it made the point that getting people into that habit at a young age will result in our having better public transport. Minister, do you agree that the British Government need to fund us fairly so that we can have good and affordable transport, good transport links and improved access to trains and buses across the North, but particularly in rural areas?

Ms Kimmins: Yes, absolutely. I will use the example of the fleadh over the summer, because it is critical to what we are talking about. The Executive came together to provide the offer of enhanced public transport for the fleadh, and people used it. Record numbers of people used public transport because it was available and reliable and got them where they want to go more easily. The old cliché is, "Build it, and they will come", and people will use public transport if it is made available to them.

I do not want financial cost to be a barrier, particularly for our young people. We want to build in those habits from a young age. When I was younger, I did not necessarily jump on a train to Belfast from Newry. It was a novelty. Now, young people use the train every week, going up and down, whether to uni, for work or even to socialise, and vice versa. I want that to continue, but I also want to build on that, which is challenging with the budget that we have. When we hear the Prime Minister in Britain talk about cutting fares to £2, we want to do more of that, but we need a Budget that would enable us to do that in a sustainable way. That is exactly why the Executive are united in our negotiations with the Secretary of State, because the Westminster Government need to get real and to understand the impacts of their decisions on people here, who deserve much better.

Mr Dunne: Translink is considering a range of measures that, alarmingly, could see the removal of some bus and rail services from 10.00 pm on Mondays to Wednesdays, for example, along with changes to the discount fares, which was mentioned. Following the closure of the EQIA consultation a number of weeks ago, what direct discussions has the Minister had with Translink, and how can she stand over such devastating cuts to those front-line public transport services?

Ms Kimmins: As I said in previous answers, Translink is considering the consultation responses. Once Translink has concluded its analysis, we will be engaging with it. In my engagement with Translink to date, I have made it clear that we need to work closely to ensure that we can avoid those cuts. For the all the reasons that I just outlined, I want to encourage more people to use public transport, not to deter them. We froze public transport fares for the past two years because I did not want cost to become a barrier to its use, particularly during a cost-of-living crisis. That is why I and the Member's colleagues in the Executive are fighting hard to ensure that we get a Budget that delivers for people here and that we can deliver good public services, including public transport.

Ms Kimmins: I have said repeatedly that road safety is a high priority for my Department, and we are committed to working proactively to make our roads safer and to address the needs of all road users. We are acutely aware that children and young people are among the most vulnerable groups using roads, particularly around schools.

In June last year, I announced tranche 3 of a programme for part-time 20 mph zones that would benefit 40 schools across the North as part of my Department's ongoing commitment to improving road safety. That tranche focused on schools on rural roads where the 60 mph national speed limit applied. It did so for obvious reasons because those roads pose a high risk for children and young people going to and from school.

Delivering each project is a tailored and collaborative exercise, involving constructive engagement with the PSNI, equipment suppliers and contractors, alongside careful coordination to meet the statutory requirements for implementing the legislation covering the new speed limits. The work draws on the expertise and input of teams from across the Department and reflects a shared commitment to supporting safer journeys for pupils, parents and local communities. Significant work has been completed across all areas of the programme, and I am pleased to advise that 31 of the 40 schools were fully completed as of 1 October. The remaining schools are scheduled for completion in the coming weeks.

Whilst the focus is aimed at high-speed roads where national speed limits apply, I am aware that there are also schools in urban and residential areas that would benefit from a reduction in speed limits. That is why I asked my officials to consider other schools that could benefit from 20 mph limits, and that work is continuing. Any further tranche will be considered in light of the evidence from the speed limit review, the updated policy position, site-specific circumstances and the funding available to my Department.

Ms Egan: Thank you, Minister. During this mandate, no school in North Down has been the subject of an announcement about a 20 mph speed limit. Plenty of schools in my constituency are asking for that, including Crawfordsburn Primary School. When will you announce that further schools in my constituency will have that speed limit on the roads outside them?

Ms Kimmins: The announcements to date were not made on a constituency basis. They are done by division, and the Member will be aware that there are four departmental divisions across the North. They were based purely on schools that scored highest. As I said in my response, we focused on schools on rural roads where there was a 60 mph speed limit. In conjunction with that work — hopefully, this will give the Member reassurance — we recently completed the speed limit review, and I am due to move that to the next stage. Part of that work involved looking at having permanent 20 mph speed limits across the board outside schools in more residential areas.

Whilst what we have done to date was budget dependent and worked off assessment criteria and scoring, I am cognisant that every child should be able to get to and from school safely, and very much at the forefront of my mind is how we can change policy. When I am able to make a further announcement on the speed limit review, hopefully that will provide clarity on some of those issues.

Mr Speaker: We now move on to topical questions.

Ms Kimmins: The Member will know, having been briefed, I am sure, at Committee, that it is something that the Department has been working on and that it is a priority. We have been looking at funding streams of which we can avail ourselves for that. I am due to meet officials in the coming days about work on flood protection, and I hope to have a further update on that. I am happy to respond to the Member in writing with any specifics.

Mr McNulty: Minister, flooding has been devastating across the North, including in our constituency, with Newry and Camlough experiencing major flood events in recent years. Can people be assured that the new forecasting service will finally provide support for local community response teams and statutory agencies so that they can deploy resources to reduce the impact of flooding?

Ms Kimmins: The key role of a flood forecasting service is to ensure that, where there is a potential flood risk, people are aware of it. It is about getting alerts out to people and having the foresight to prepare for and be more resilient to such events. Protecting people, businesses and homes from flooding more widely is a much bigger piece of work that we are doing all the time. As I said in my answer to Andrew McMurray, it is Flood Awareness Week, and we have put out some information about how we can all play a part in protecting our homes or businesses from flooding.

Among the things that I have done since coming into post is to increase the threshold for the homeowner flood protection grant scheme, which I did, given in particular the experiences that we had in 2023 and other years, when we saw significant flooding affect homes and businesses. We encourage more people to avail themselves of that scheme, because it provides a valuable opportunity to protect their home as well as possible. Along with the Minister for the Economy, we recently launched flood protection grants for businesses, with the pilot launched in Newry. On the back of that, I hope to see the scheme broadened out across more areas, because I recognise the importance of giving businesses certainty.

We are the lead Department in the multi-agency response, and we always plan for the worst-case scenario. A lot of our work involves building flood alleviation schemes. Schemes for Newry, Downpatrick, Portadown and many other areas are at various stages of development. We know, however, that hard infrastructure is not the answer to every issue, so there is a huge amount of work to consider. The key message that, I hope, the Member will take away is that it is ongoing work. We have all those things in our armoury to help us prepare for and protect against flooding, but —

Mr Speaker: OK, Minister.

Ms Kimmins: — it is ongoing work, and we will work with everybody on it.

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for his question: it is an important issue. People getting into a taxi trust that they will get home safely or get safely to wherever they are going. It is something that I take seriously, particularly because gaps have been identified. Officials are engaging with key stakeholders including AccessNI, the PSNI and the Courts and Tribunals Service to explore potential improvements to reporting mechanisms in order to minimise delays between convictions being recorded and licence renewals. I have not set a time frame for that, but I am happy to keep the Member informed, because I know that the issue is of particular interest to him. We really need to close the gaps to ensure that people can have full confidence that they are getting into a taxi with someone of the character that they would expect.

Mr Wilson: I thank the Minister for her answer. As she said, taxi drivers hold positions of trust and, of course, in the main, operate without issue as they regularly transport a range of vulnerable passengers, such as children, those with additional needs and, as the Minister rightly said, people coming home from a night out. However, from a wider responsibility perspective, and given the issues that I have highlighted to you, I understand that the Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime raised with your Department the possibility of having CCTV in taxis. Has the Minister given further consideration to that proposal?

Ms Kimmins: That proposal has not come to me, but I am happy to speak to officials about it in order to scope out what it would entail and look like.

It is important to reflect on the Member's comment that, on the whole, our taxi services are highly reputable and very safe, and they ensure that people, be they a child, an elderly person, a vulnerable person or someone going to and from a night out or work, get home safely. It is about continuing to ensure that we protect those workers out there who do a really good job and in whom we can place our trust and that we protect passengers. I am happy to speak to officials about that to see where it goes. We will keep the Member informed.

Ms Kimmins: That is an operational matter for NI Water. However, we sought an update, and NI Water advised that, in the past five years, five incidents at that location can be attributed to burst water mains. The most recent incident, as the Member will be aware, was on 30 September, when contractors working on behalf of NI Water attended and removed the excess water from the road on the same day. NI Water recognises the inconvenience caused by that event, but, given the low incident rate, has no current plans to replace any of the water mains at that location.

Under my Department's current limited service policy, the East Link Road gullies were last cleaned on 2 October this year, with no defects reported. Hopefully, that gives some confidence that everything has been checked in the way that it should be. We will, however, continue to keep it under review.

Mr Brooks: I thank the Minister for her answer, but my constituents have reported more regular issues than that. I am not sure whether those are down to reasons other than a burst water main, but I encourage her to take the issue back to NI Water. There is growing frustration about the fact that that busy road floods quite regularly, which causes a lot of disruption, particularly in the morning. I would therefore appreciate it if the Minister could take that back to NI Water and make sure that a more permanent fix is found.

Ms Kimmins: I certainly will. If other incidents have not been officially reported, I encourage the Member to report those through my private office so that we have a record of them and can stand over that. I can only go on the information that I have. I am not sure whether there have been any incidents since 30 September. If not, hopefully, that is a good sign. We will continue to keep it under review.

Ms Kimmins: I am absolutely delighted with the Court of Appeal's judgement last week. It represents a significant milestone for that vital road safety and infrastructure project. The judgement provided legal clarity and vindicates my Department's position throughout that it complied with the requirements of the Climate Change Act 2022, despite others' efforts to take away from that. We were confident in our position at all stages.

The judgement was a very welcome outcome, and it provided the certainty needed not only for the A5 but for the delivery of major infrastructure projects across the North. My officials are working at pace to ensure that construction on the A5 can begin as soon as possible. That will involve completing the remaining checks and approvals as well as getting agreement on costs with the current contractors. Whilst I cannot provide a definitive commencement date until all those steps have been completed, I remain fully committed to progressing the scheme as quickly as possible.

Once received, it will be important to consider the Court of Appeal's judgement in detail. The decision appears to provide welcome clarity to enable us to move forward on other major roads projects. In anticipation of that, I have asked officials to bring forward proposals as a matter of priority so that effective road schemes can progress at pace, helping us to deliver safer roads, better connections and greater economic opportunities for communities across the North.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Minister, thank you for the update. I am sure that, like me, you have listened to the experts, such as civil engineers, accountants and compulsory purchase order experts. The main concern has always been safety: do you agree that a price cannot be put on the safety of the drivers and pedestrians who use the A5?

Ms Kimmins: Yes. I have said repeatedly that you cannot put a price on a life. Last Tuesday evening, after the judgement, I had the privilege of joining some of the families at Tyrone GAA’s clubhouse. I met and listened to them, and the relief that they felt brought home to me the importance of the scheme. I pay tribute to the families, the Enough is Enough campaigners and Tyrone GAA for the tremendous effort that they put in for many years to ensure that we got to this point. I hope that this is the end of it for them and that we can move ahead undeterred and get the road built. It is an absolute priority, and it will save lives. Their key objective is to ensure that no other family goes through what they have endured.

Ms Kimmins: I can come back to the Member with the specifics of that. Obviously, we have a number of schemes already in train that are priorities for the Department. Has the Member asked about a bypass for Ballykelly or a specific scheme?

Mr Robinson: It is not specific.

Ms Kimmins: I am happy to look at that now that we have a clear way forward. Obviously, during the rest of the mandate, a number of schemes have already been confirmed, are ready to go and are at various stages of progress. However, other potential schemes that will bring benefits are kept under review. I will get an update from officials on that specific ask.

Mr Robinson: I thank the Minister for the response. Minister, your answer in April was that an updated route assessment and cost estimate would be required before there could be any announcement about a Ballykelly bypass. Has the work on that started? Do you have a timetable for the work?

Ms Kimmins: As I said, I can get the detail from officials. Obviously, a number of things have had an impact on our ability to progress all the different schemes, and the priority has been the A5 appeal process. However, I will get an update on the bypass because I appreciate that a lot of the work may have already happened. I will come back to the Member in writing.

Mr Speaker: Ms Ennis is not in her place. I call Declan Kearney.

Ms Kimmins: El Niño is an example of the more frequent and intense rainfall events that are a consequence of increasing climate change. Therefore, preparedness and resilience have never been more important. This year, there has been considerable attention on the development of El Niño and its potential influence on global weather patterns. Whilst we cannot control the weather and prevent all flooding, I assure the public that we remain alert and prepared. Our duty officer and flooding officer rotas operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year to ensure that we are ready to respond when required. There are currently around 45,000 homes and businesses at risk of flooding across the North, and because our changing climate brings more frequent and intense rainfall, the figure is projected to increase to nearly 60,000.

As we know, flooding can put lives at risk, damage homes and businesses, disrupt communities and have a lasting impact on people's mental health. My Department carries out a wide range of activities to manage flood risk, including the delivery of flood alleviation projects. It also responds to calls to the flooding incident line, which is available at any time of the day or night. My officials work closely with partner organisations, including the community resilience groups, to prepare for and respond to flooding emergencies. However, it is important to note that we cannot control the weather and prevent all flooding; we can only mitigate as best we can.

This is Flood Awareness Week, and my Department will share practical advice to help people prepare for flooding and help protect themselves, their families, their homes and their businesses.

Mr Kearney: Minister, you have worked closely with me and local residents in Antrim town specifically, which has been the subject of very severe flooding in recent months. Can you give me an assurance that, as we move through the rest of this year, you and your officials will prioritise flood alleviation and defence measures in Antrim town, specifically Meadowside, Riverside, Dunadry and Massereene Street?

Ms Kimmins: My officials have continued to engage with residents and representatives, including you, to further develop that community resilience in Antrim. Having been there when the flooding occurred earlier this year, I know how detrimental the impact of that has been. Additional support includes resources being provided locally and access to information on flood-related matters, including insurance. The Department continues to undertake routine inspection and maintenance of designated watercourses and drainage infrastructure to ensure that they continue to function effectively. We continue to work on longer-term schemes to find a viable scheme that will suit that area. I really appreciate the ongoing work with residents and local representatives, including you, and I hope to continue that until we find a long-term solution.

Mr Wilson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I seek your guidance on a matter of ministerial accountability? The AERA Minister recently refused to answer Assembly questions seeking basic factual information about the operation of his Department, instead citing an ongoing independent review. The information requested concerns current departmental structures and functions and has not required the Minister to prejudice any findings or recommendations. Can you advise whether it is in order for the Minister to rely on an ongoing review as a reason not to answer straightforward factual questions? Does that risk undermining Members' ability to hold Ministers properly to account? Can you issue any direction in that regard?

Mr Speaker: While the Speaker's Office does not have a direct role in Ministers' responses to questions, it is evident to me, as Speaker and having been a Member for a long time, that an independent inquiry into something that has happened in a Department does not obviate the need to answer questions from MLAs. The first line of scrutiny that Ministers should adhere to is the Assembly, the Committees and the Members of this institution. They are there to do that on behalf of the people.

Ms McLaughlin: I beg to move

Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have five minutes in which to propose and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who speak will have three minutes.

Ms McLaughlin: I am pleased to move the motion as we mark Black History Month 2026. Black History Month has its roots in America in the long struggle for equality, dignity and basic civil rights. It is a struggle that saw people take to the streets demanding an end to racial segregation, discrimination and denial of voting rights. That struggle has particular significance for us in the North because, while people in America were demanding equality, people here were marching for fair housing, equal voting rights and an end to discrimination. There is no doubt that our civil rights movement drew inspiration from the courage of those who stood up against injustice in America. They showed that ordinary people coming together and demanding better could deliver real change. That is something that we in the SDLP understand well. We are a party born out of the civil rights movement and built on the belief that every person deserves dignity, respect and equality.

Black History Month is also an opportunity to celebrate the enormous contribution that black people and ethnic minority communities make to our society. We see that contribution every day in our hospitals, delivering life-saving care, in our businesses, schools and communities and in sectors such as life sciences and innovation, helping to shape our economic future. Those people who have come here to build better lives for themselves and their families while helping to build a better future for everyone who calls this place "home". I am particularly proud that my party colleague Lilian Seenoi-Barr made history as Northern Ireland's first black mayor.

We cannot celebrate that progress without confronting what has happened on our streets. Over the past year, we have witnessed scenes that should shame us all: buses burned; families driven from their homes; businesses forced to close; and people being targeted and intimidated simply because of the colour of their skin or where they are from. In the weeks following that violence, party colleagues and I met representatives from across our ethnic minority communities. Those meetings were deeply sobering. People spoke about being frightened to leave their home. Parents worried about their children's safety. Others simply could not understand why they were being blamed for the actions of an individual. The clearest message was that they felt abandoned by the very people who were supposed to protect them. There was anger about political rhetoric in the aftermath of the violence. Above all, there was frustration that words of condemnation were not being matched by meaningful action.

That brings us to the central issue of the motion. The Executive's legislative programme for 2025-26 promised racial equality legislation, yet here we are, approaching the end of the Assembly mandate, and that legislation has still not been introduced. When questioned, the First Minister and deputy First Minister point to a review of the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997: I welcome any effort to strengthen protections against racial discrimination, but a review is not legislation and is certainly not a substitute for delivering the commitment that was made. Where is the racial equality Bill? Why has it not been introduced? When exactly do the First Minister and deputy First Minister intend to deliver on their promise? Those are questions that we, as legislators, have a responsibility to ask and have answered.

The questions being asked by our ethnic minority communities are much more fundamental. They are asking, "Why am I frightened to walk down my own street?"; "Why should my children worry about being targeted because of the colour of their skin?"; "Why am I made to feel like a second-class citizen in a place that I call home?"; and, "Why are promises not matched with action?". The Executive need to answer those questions. Nobody should live in fear in their own community or be made to feel that they do not belong. The civil rights movement taught us that equality cannot simply be talked about; it has to be fought for, protected and delivered. That was true when people marched in America; it was true when people marched in Derry; and it remains true today.

As we mark Black History Month, let us celebrate the contribution of black people and communities to our society, but let us also recognise that celebration means little without action. It is time for the Executive to deliver on their promises and get serious about tackling the scourge of racist violence on our streets.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Emma, you have three minutes.

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

On behalf of Sinn Féin, I support the motion. I thank the proposer for her articulate and broad introduction of the motion. I agree with much of what she said. We see the positive contribution that our black and ethnic minority communities make to this part of the world. We see a society here that is more diverse than it has ever been, and we are all the better for that. However, as with Ms McLaughlin, it pains me to see the way in which our ethnic minority communities have been treated and, in particular, the rise in violent attacks and the disgusting and shameful incidents that we saw occur again this summer.

Like the Opposition, I am frustrated by the lack of progress on the issue. It is my understanding that, in the Executive Office, the First Minister has done everything that she can to progress the racial equality legislation in order to update the outdated Race Relations Order from the 1990s.

I would like to get an understanding, perhaps from junior Minister Bunting, who is responding to the debate —.

Ms Bunting (Junior Minister, The Executive Office): Will the Member take an intervention?

Ms Sheerin: I will give you the opportunity now, if you would like to give me an explanation as to where the blockage is.

Ms Bunting: There is an agreed response that junior Minister Reilly will deliver on behalf of the Department.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): You do not get an extra minute for that, Emma.

Ms Sheerin: I suppose that the SDLP knows, and we all know in here, where the blockage to that is. As depressing as that is, it is what it is, but I know that it does not lie with our party.

The proposer of the motion touched on the fact that Black History Month has its origins in America, where the shameful treatment of black people was seen over many generations. They were taken there as slaves and were treated terribly even after the end of the slave trade. We can see the same attitudes manifest themselves towards different sections of society. It is my view — I think that it is universally acknowledged — that racism, sectarianism, sexism, xenophobia and Islamophobia all find their roots in the same insecurity and hatred and fear of anyone who is different. We have to be consistent in our language and careful in our tone in calling all of that out all of the time and in creating a welcoming society that is free from harassment for everyone who lives here, regardless of what they contribute to society.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Deborah Erskine. Deborah, you have three minutes.

Mrs Erskine: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. My speech was going to be different, but I will start with this first: one would think from some of the commentary in the Chamber so far today that nothing is being done about race relations. Quite frankly, there is not enough time to discuss the matter today, because the issues are complex, and they need scrutiny to make sure that whatever we produce out of Departments actually works in communities and for the voices that the motion seeks to help. We need to make sure that the proposals, the legislation, the policies and the strategies that come out of Departments work on the ground. There is no point in having legislation for legislation's sake in this place. If we rush out and do things without taking on the concerns from both sides — all sides — of the community that live and work in Northern Ireland, how do we ensure that everything works on the ground? That is the important point.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Erskine: I have only three minutes, and I will continue.

That is why it is important to make the point that what is under consideration is substantial. It is complex and covers a wide range of issues, including employment, education, the provision of goods and services, enforcement arrangements and the role of the Equality Commission.

Last year, the Executive published their refugee integration strategy, supported by a comprehensive delivery plan, to ensure successful long-term integration. Alongside that, officials are developing a new framework for race relations, together with an accompanying delivery plan. People have appeared before the Executive Office Committee to give their viewpoints on that. That will help to inform what the Executive are looking to do in addressing racial disparities, tackling racism and promoting positive race relations. The public consultation, as we know, will have attracted a significant number of responses. Officials are going through that feedback, and a report will be published.

Building community cohesion requires sustained partnership working. Therefore, we have heard from good relations officials at Committee, and it is clear that they continue to do what they can in councils and local government to strengthen those good relations. When it came to disorder, the Executive stepped in to provide community support hubs in every council, integration activities, the minority ethnic development fund and the planned intervention programme.

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

Mrs Erskine: There is more work to do. It is a complex area.

Mr Dickson: I welcome the debate on the motion and will begin my remarks by recognising the enormous contribution that the black and minority ethnic communities make to Northern Ireland. We need to ask ourselves some fairly uncomfortable questions, however. What does it say about our society that we are celebrating Black History Month 2026 against a backdrop of record levels of racist intimidation and violence? What does it say about the Executive that, despite their repeated commitments, we are still waiting for them to strengthen racial equality legislation?

In the previous financial year, the PSNI recorded 2,300 race hate incidents and 1,500 race hate crimes: the highest levels since records began. Those figures represent people being threatened in their homes, intimidated on our streets and made to feel unwelcome in their own communities. Let me be clear: whatever concerns people may have about immigration or public services, there is no justification — no justification whatsoever — for targeting someone just because of their race, nationality or background. Too often, we have seen misinformation and prejudice be exploited to stir up fear and division and the consequences of hatred spill on to our streets. Condemnation is the easy part, of course. The real test of political leadership is what we are prepared to do about it. That is where I believe that the Executive Office has serious questions to answer. Our race relations legislation dates back to 1997. For how long do we need to consider it? For 30 years? The need to update it has been recognised for a long time, yet the promised legislation has still to be introduced. I therefore struggle to understand how, in the face of rising racist violence, that can be considered an acceptable position.

Our Minister of Justice has been progressing work to strengthen hate crime legislation in order to ensure that those who target people because of hatred can be held properly to account. Policing and criminal justice cannot carry the entire responsibility or burden, however. That is why we have an Executive Office with responsibility for equality and good relations. It is simply not good enough for Ministers to stand together and condemn racist violence when it happens, only for commitments to tackle its underlying causes to remain undelivered, because the responsibility is not simply to respond when things go wrong but to create the conditions in which people can live together safely and with mutual respect.

I welcome the opportunity to mark Black History Month, but celebrating the contribution of black communities means very little if we are not equally prepared to stand up for their rights and safety. People who are affected by racism do not need a round of warm words or expressions of concern. Rather, they need the Executive's commitments to translate into action. We have waited too long.

Mr Nesbitt: I am happy to report that the Ulster Unionist Party supports the motion. Mr Dickson gave us some of the shocking and unprecedented statistics on race hate incidents and race hate crimes. In June 2026 alone, there were 512 race hate incidents. That is quite shocking. It is therefore right that, during Black History Month, the Assembly recognise the contribution of that community, which is felt right across society: in schools, businesses, churches, the arts, community organisations and, of course, our hospitals and care homes. One of the great pleasures in my 27 months as Minister of Health was to meet every week members of that community who were working to deliver health and social care as part of the 70,000-odd people who do just that daily.

Sadly, though, it was my misfortune that, during the two summers that I was in post, I had to pay visits in support of people who had been subjected to race attacks. In the first summer, there were race riots in Ballymena, and I stood on the streets — I have said this before in the House — and thought that there was something uniquely and profoundly sad about seeing a burnt-out mid-terrace house that had been attacked simply because of the race of the person or people who lived in it, as well as signs in front windows or on doors that read, "I am a Filipino. I work for the NHS" or Union flags. It was like Passover, because they were saying to the rioters, "Do not attack me. Pass on by". That is not the society that I want my children to come back to, as one is preparing to do, by the way.

There is also a question of the blockage. I heard Ms Sheerin mention it. I chaired the Committee for the Executive Office for five years. Often, I came to the conclusion that it was the political equivalent of a cosmic black hole.

Stuff goes in but it disappears, and sometimes it never re-emerges. The fault does not lie with one side or the other; it is part of the system. It is a systemic problem with the way that we do business, and, to a large degree, it defines the challenge of consociational, or power-sharing, government. I hope that the two parties that occupy Stormont Castle can find a way out of whatever blockage is holding the strategy back, because it is so important, not just symbolically but for the people whom we are here to serve.

Ms Nicholl: I had some comments prepared about the legislation and what is needed, but that has been covered. I will start by thanking the Opposition for tabling the motion. Some of the leaders of our black community are in the Gallery, and I thank them for their leadership and courage and for speaking out. I know that what drives so much of their work is other people in their community who do not have access to politicians and who cannot pick up the phone to the BBC to make points. They really want us to take this seriously. Not wanting to rush through legislation is not really a reason. It has been 30 years. As so often when we have such debates, I think of Anna Lo and what she went through. I think about what she did and what she would be thinking about where we are right now.

I will centre most of my comments on what young people and children experience. So often when we talk about racism — and this is no one's fault — we talk about the benefits that people from minority communities bring to our society. We need to stay away from that idea, because every person has value and worth. We fall into the trap of talking about good migrants and bad migrants — people who are deserving and people who are not. Every person is deserving of equality, dignity and being treated equally. We are not delivering that in Northern Ireland. How many people must feel fearful? Every year for the past three years, there have been race riots. What does it feel like to be a child knowing that summer is coming and that that may happen again? When I met families the day after the most recent riots — people who had been taken out of their homes — they were terrified. Their children did not go back to school for months. What sort of childhood is that? What are we doing for those children? We fall into narratives that may get us some social media likes, but we have to be so careful, because behind every one of the awful statistics that were read out is a real human being with a family who feels this.

This place knows what it is like to have division and knows the danger of othering people. We have to overcome that. When I spoke to the children and young people from Diverse Youth Northern Ireland, they said, "Racism and sectarianism are not the same thing, but they stem from the same thing". Peacebuilding has to involve how we treat people from other communities. We are failing children from minority ethnic communities in our society. This Black History Month, we need to recognise that we have to do better. Next summer cannot be more of the same.

Mr O'Toole: I did not intend to speak, because I probably speak enough in general in here, and I have spoken a lot today. However, because it is an Opposition motion — my colleague Mark Durkan will deliver the winding-up speech in a few minutes — and having experienced so much as a constituency MLA of the awfulness of what is happening to our black and minority ethnic community in Northern Ireland and on this island more generally, I had to speak up. Representatives from the African and Caribbean Support Organisation Northern Ireland (ACSONI) and the North West Migrants Forum are here today. They provide such leadership and moral courage, not just to the rest of their community but to those of us who are elected representatives and have to stand robustly against what has been happening for the past few years. I am proud, as, I am sure, the Member who spoke previously is, to represent probably the most diverse constituency on the island of Ireland. I treasure it. It is fundamental to what South Belfast is. However, over the past three years, we have seen an ever-deteriorating situation where people of colour fear for their lives, their livelihoods and their families.

We have moved on a few months from June, but we should not forget the gravity of what happened here in June. We had what amounts to a pogrom on the streets of this region, and that is not too strong a word. People were being hunted from door to door because of the colour of their skin. Families were put out of their houses. I had to shelter a number of Indian families in my constituency office, including primary-school children, who were literally sheltering in fear of their lives. That is not an exaggeration. The same thing happened the year before and the year before that after a racist rally in the middle of Belfast. We need to be alive to the seriousness of what is happening.

This is not simply about a race relations strategy or nice-to-have legislation coming out of the Bermuda Triangle, or whatever the analogy was that Mr Nesbitt used about the Executive Office. It is about people's lives, the society that we want to be and the duty that we owe to our citizens, of whatever colour or background, to keep them safe and to ensure that they have basic dignity and human rights in this society. People will judge us on that, and they have judged us on it over the last little while. It is shameful and shocking that the Executive Office has not been able to update its relevant strategies and produce promised legislation. However, more generally, we need a strategy and leadership from those in power to stand against this and also to give some hope and direction, including to those young people who are tempted by loyalist paramilitaries — let us call it for what it is — out onto the streets to engage in violence. It needs to stop, and we, as the official Opposition, will keep the issue on the agenda.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call junior Minister Reilly to respond to the debate. Aisling, you have 10 minutes.

Ms Reilly (Junior Minister, The Executive Office): Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I also want to start by welcoming a lot of familiar faces and friends in the Gallery.

I welcome the opportunity to respond to this motion, and I thank the proposer for bringing it forward. It is extremely poignant that we are speaking today as we mark Black History Month 2026. It is also significant that we do so during the United Nations Second International Decade for People of African Descent. This is an important time to recognise and celebrate the contribution that black people and communities make to life here. We see that contribution every day. We see it in our hospitals, our businesses, our schools, our universities, arts and culture, and in every community right across the North. Those are our friends, our neighbours, our work colleagues and our families, and they are people who contribute so much to our society and help make this place what it is. It is important that we recognise and celebrate that contribution, not just during Black History Month but throughout the entire year. While Black History Month is a celebration, it is also an opportunity for reflection, because every person, regardless of race, religion or background, deserves to feel safe, valued and respected.

Building a society that is free from racism is not about responding to incidents when they happen: it is about fostering understanding, challenging prejudice and creating opportunities for meaningful engagement between communities. That requires all of us to work together to create a society in which every person is treated with dignity, respect and equality. We have all seen the fear and hurt that has been caused by racist attacks and disorder in recent years, but we have also seen the very best of communities that have come together, stood alongside their neighbours and showed compassion and solidarity. That is the spirit that we need to build upon.

While, as has been mentioned, legislative reform remains important, we are working and progressing in other areas because we cannot stand still. We are progressing the new framework for race relations, which builds on the racial equality strategy 2015-2025. That sets out our vision for a society in which diversity is valued and everyone has the opportunity to fulfil their potential. It focuses on four priorities: addressing structural inequalities; tackling racism and race hate crime; making sure that there is fair access to services; and strengthening community cohesion. Those are ambitions about whether someone is treated fairly when seeking employment or housing, whether they can access the services that they need, whether their children feel welcome at school and whether they feel part of the community in which they live.

We have also focused on a range of initiatives designed to improve the everyday lives of people who live here, including the launch of the ending violence against women and girls strategy and the refugee integration strategy. These are important initiatives that seek to deliver meaningful change by addressing issues that matter most to people's lives and, importantly, their experiences. Earlier this year, we consulted on the draft framework and its accompanying two-year delivery plan. We had more than 700 responses. I thank everyone who contributed, particularly those who shared their own experiences of racism and discrimination. Their voices matter, and they must help to shape what happens next. That feedback is being carefully considered as work continues to finalise the framework.

We absolutely recognise the importance of making sure that people have the opportunity to realise their potential, and that both they and the communities in which they settle receive the support that they need. In doing so, we will work towards a truly integrated and shared society, regardless of race, ethnicity or immigration status. Members will be aware that that is why the Executive agreed and published the refugee integration strategy and the delivery framework in May last year. Since then, work has continued to progress a number of key priorities in line with the delivery approach set out in the framework. Last year, that included establishing resource hubs across council areas, conducting a skills and employment survey, extending regional immigration advice provision to March 2026, and enhancing communications and public awareness. More than £1 million of funding was provided to support those important initiatives.

We continue to invest in practical support for people and communities. Through the minority ethnic development fund, we provide approximately £1·1 million annually to support 28 groups that are delivering vital work across our society. Those organisations are often the first point of contact for people who need advice, reassurance and support. They help families to access services, build confidence and feel connected to their communities. I acknowledge the difference that they make every single day.

In response to the race-related unrest in recent years, we have approved a suite of targeted interventions, developed through cross-organisational collaboration, to address the root causes. These include an orientation programme on cultural norms and expectations, an engagement and building relationships initiative to support long-term positive engagement between communities, and education and early intervention programmes that link with schools and youth settings. We are also progressing a public communications campaign aimed at bringing about attitudinal change, improving race relations, building community confidence and supporting integration. An updated race relations order will sit alongside our initiatives and strategies and support their implementation. However, it can do so effectively only if it is fit for purpose. When the legislation is brought in, it has to be robust, fit for purpose and reflective of the highest standards of equality.

We are committed to improving the lives of all people living here. Alongside legislative reform, we will implement the new race relations framework. That framework builds on the achievements of the racial equality strategy and represents a renewed strategic effort to make sure that everyone, regardless of race or ethnicity, can thrive, contribute meaningfully and experience a genuine sense of belonging. It sets out a clear direction for progress and is guided by a vision of a society in which diversity is valued and everyone can live free from discrimination. We absolutely recognise the need to continue our efforts right across government and society to tackle racism and inequality, particularly in light of recent unrest. We remain committed to securing meaningful and lasting equality, not only for today but as a legacy for future generations. The continued support and advice of the subgroup and the wider sector are warmly welcomed as we take this important work forward. Let us move forward together, united in our determination to build a peaceful, inclusive and welcoming future for everyone who calls this place home.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Mark Durkan to make a winding-up speech. Mark, you have five minutes.

Mr Durkan: Thanks, Deputy Speaker.

Everyone who calls Northern Ireland home, and everyone who has made Northern Ireland their home, deserves to feel safe, valued and welcome. That should be the bare minimum, but, for too many people, that is not their reality. Recent events around Drumcree have reminded us of how quickly tensions can rise and how easily division over our past can be exploited. Racial hatred is not confined to our past; it is a stark reality in our present. Last summer — it is not just over the summer that this happens, but that is when it is most prevalent — we again witnessed widespread and orchestrated attacks on the homes of immigrants. Families who should have felt safe behind their own front doors were left frightened and wondering whether they truly belonged here.

People who contribute positively to our economy and society, some of whose families have lived here for generations, became targets simply because they are black or brown.

It has been good to hear so many contributors acknowledge the positive contribution that newcomers make to our society. We all appreciate that. Last summer, however, my office was contacted by several parents and even grandparents who were worried about their children. Some kept them away from football practice. Teenagers stayed at home rather than risk a trip into the city centre. Think about that: children who should be worrying about homework, school tests and playing with friends were worrying about whether it was safe to go outside. Many are still worried. No parent should have to fear for their child simply because of the colour of their skin. No child should have to question whether they belong in the place that they call home.

The issue became more personal for me when my child came home from school talking about an immigrant child in their class who had been absent. Having heard whispers among classmates and been exposed to the news, my child feared that something terrible might have happened. That stayed with me. It showed me how racism reaches beyond those who are directly targeted and most impacted on. It spreads fear among classmates, families and communities. Our children see the headlines, hear the rhetoric and absorb the atmosphere that we create. We promised our ceasefire babies and every generation since a more peaceful, prosperous and integrated home — a future in which children would not inherit our fears and the divisions of the past. We cannot keep that promise if we fail to confront racism today. That requires more than words; it requires leadership, accountability and protection in law.

Ms Nicholl: Will the Member give way?

Mr Durkan: I will not get an extra minute.

Racial equality legislation remains another undelivered promise of the Executive, despite its inclusion in the 2025-26 legislative programme. Mr Dickson referred to the fact that race hate incidents and crimes reached record levels in that year. Behind those figures are real people. Behind the doors are real families who are frightened in their homes: children afraid to attend activities, and parents worrying about whether their loved ones will return home safely. We must ask the Executive Office this: why has the legislation not been introduced, and when will that promise be delivered? Minister Reilly outlined some work that has been done and said that we cannot stand still. We agree on that. To many people affected, however, it seems not like we are standing still but like we are going backwards.

Every Member has a responsibility to challenge hatred, temper their language and consider the consequences of their words and actions. We cannot ask communities to build trust while some of our conduct undermines it. We cannot claim to be building a shared future while some of our neighbours wonder whether they have a future here at all. We should be angry that people still live with that fear, but let that anger be purposeful: let it drive us to act, to protect and to change things for the better. Deliver the legislation, challenge the hate and lead with decency, compassion and humanity.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I ask Members to take their ease for a few moments.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): In conjunction with the Business Committee, the Speaker has given leave to Colm Gildernew to raise the matter of the continuing delay of the promised new build at Oakridge Social Education Centre in Dungannon. Colm, over to you. You have up to 15 minutes.

Mr Gildernew: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It will not take anything like that amount of time, because this is a well-rehearsed issue. I thank the Minister and my constituency colleagues for coming along today, because, while it is well-rehearsed, it is a vexatious and long-running saga.

As, I am sure, the Minister will know, Oakridge centre is a day centre for adults aged 18 and older with learning disabilities and severe medical issues. It provides huge support and added value to many people in our community. It serves all of the Southern Health and Social Care Trust area. For many years, it has been assessed as needing a new build, and it has been allocated the money. It is and has been for some time the top social care project in the Southern Trust. However, when it comes to the budgeting stage, it becomes merged with other priorities. The question for us today is this: for how long can we allow important social care projects to be assessed alongside crucial, acute care services? We recognise the need for the work that is done in Craigavon, but, in some ways, Oakridge will never be able to compete with that. It will, therefore, take something a bit different.

I look forward to attending a pumpkin patch event that the centre is running at the weekend. That is symbolic of the type of above-and-beyond activity that goes on.

It is as simple as that, Minister. I am calling on you to see whether you can bring something different to end this 20-year saga and to get something moving on the new build that the centre has been assessed as requiring and that has been budgeted for, for so long.

Finally, Minister, I am delighted to invite you to come along with me to Oakridge. I have been in it many times, and I know from working with you in the past that you would enjoy a visit there. I would appreciate it if that could, in some way, help to move this on. Thank you for listening.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Deborah, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mrs Erskine: A lot of Members do not want me to talk for 10 minutes, but thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank my constituency colleague for securing the Adjournment debate.

I will probably go off script. How we treat our most vulnerable shows how much we care. This has been a long-running saga. Expectations have been raised and then hopes have been dashed about a new build, the facilities and the need for them. That does not reflect well on how we treat our most vulnerable and the needs that exist in the community. I will not rehearse much of the argument that my constituency colleague Mr Gildernew made, but I am sure that my constituency colleagues will attest to the fact that investment in social care is lacking in the Fermanagh and South Tyrone constituency, which I represent. We hear continually from parents about the need to expand some of the provision that is there. The system is creaking, and the difficulties that present themselves are manifold. I pay tribute to the professionalism of the staff at Oakridge and acknowledge how they continue in the facilities that they have, because the situation has been long-running and frustrating. It has been frustrating for the staff, the parents and everybody else who has been involved in the process.

At the heart of the issue is understanding why business cases have come and gone and why we are not any further forward. We know that funding pressures are part of that. Minister, I implore you to look at this again, because, as Mr Gildernew has said correctly, it is unfair that it gets subsumed into everything else. There are people and service users behind this, and you will know that acutely from all the services for which you have responsibility as Minister. You have an awful lot of mounting pressures on your desk, and I get that, but considering that we are over a decade on, the delay does not go down well in the constituency that I represent, Fermanagh and South Tyrone.

Minister, I would therefore like some clear and transparent answers today on why we are still in the situation that we are in, with no new build and no prospect of one. Hopefully, you can make a nice announcement today. What are the blockages, and not just around the funding, that are stopping the new build from happening? Do business cases need to be revisited? What else do we need to do to ensure that progress is made?

Ms D Armstrong: I also thank the Member who secured the Adjournment debate, and I thank constituency colleagues for being here for the debate. I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of the proposed redevelopment of Oakridge Social Education Centre in Dungannon, a project that I believe is necessary and long overdue. As a representative of the constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, I know the difference that services such as Oakridge make to the lives of adults with complex learning disabilities and additional care needs. For those who attend the centre, it provides more than a day's service. It offers support, opportunities for learning and social interaction and the chance for people to live fuller and more independent lives. For families and carers, it provides vital reassurance and practical support. It helps them manage the demands of everyday life.

I also pay tribute, as others have done, to the staff at Oakridge. They continue to deliver a high-quality service despite working in facilities that were never designed for the level of specialist support that is required today. Their dedication and professionalism has ensured that service users have continued to receive excellent care, often in circumstances that are far from ideal. That is why we are having today's debate.

The current accommodation is no longer fit for purpose, with a building that dates back more than a century, supplemented by temporary accommodation that was added decades ago. The shortcomings of the existing facility have been recognised for many years and are well understood by those who use it and work in it. That is why the proposed redevelopment is so important. A new, purpose-built facility would provide modern, accessible accommodation that better meets the needs of service users and staff alike. It would create an environment that promotes dignity, independence, well-being and inclusion and that gives individuals with learning disabilities the facilities and opportunities that they deserve.

I know that the Minister of Health wants to see the project progress, but we must also be honest about the realities facing the Department of Health. With growing pressures across the health estate and a substantial backlog of maintenance obligations, projects such as Oakridge face continuing uncertainty. That is why the issue cannot be viewed solely as being a matter for the Health Minister. If we are serious about improving services, modernising facilities and achieving better outcomes for people, the Executive must provide the funding necessary to achieve those objectives. For that reason, I make a direct appeal to the Minister of Finance. I urge him to recognise the importance of the project and to ensure that future capital allocations better reflect the scale of need facing our health and social care system. Providing adequate investment for Oakridge is an investment in some of the most vulnerable people in our society and in the families who depend on its services every day. Delaying such projects comes with a cost. In the long run, failing to invest often proves more expensive than making the investment in the first place. The services that centres such as Oakridge provide are life-changing for those who rely on them. If we genuinely believe in supporting people with learning disabilities to live fulfilling, independent and active lives in their communities, we must back those aspirations with the necessary investment.

I want to see redevelopment at Oakridge delivered, and the Health Minister wants to see it delivered. I believe that there is support across the House for seeing it delivered. The challenge now is for the Executive, particularly the Finance Minister, to provide the funding that is required to turn that shared ambition into reality.

The need is clear, and the case is compelling. The people who depend on the service have waited long enough.

Ms Hunter: I thank the proposer of the Adjournment topic. Dungannon is definitely not my area of expertise, but those who live with complex learning disabilities have been a huge part of the Education Committee's role, so I welcome the opportunity to speak briefly on the matter today.

I want to begin by thinking about the people who attend Oakridge and the families who depend on it. Oakridge provides day care, therapeutic support and meaningful activities for adults who live with complex learning disabilities and wider physical care needs. Those people deserve the same dignity, opportunities and quality of life as anybody else. They deserve services that are properly supported and facilities that reflect the importance of the care that is provided to them every day.

It really is, for many, infuriating that the project has not moved forward. In 2011, the business case was said to be already revised. In 2015, the then Health Minister stated that the project could not proceed because funding was unavailable. Earlier this year, the previous Health Minister was still unable to commit to a new build, despite the project having been identified as a priority for more than 20 years. I feel the pain of the families who want the project taken forward as an important hub for their community.

In my constituency of East Derry, Artspace at Aspace2, which is based in Eglinton and is similar to Oakridge, has been life-changing for local families. However, I feel strongly — my colleague Diana is right — that resources for those who live with learning disabilities must be well funded. We have an obligation to them, and the responsibility to make sure that they have appropriate facilities and resources must be shared across Departments. We know that all Departments are subject to many financial obligations and are under stress when it comes to managing budgets, but we need to make sure that we have modern and accessible buildings that meet the needs of those who live with complex learning disabilities.

I hope that the Minister can respond and that we can learn more about this important development for the community. I hope that we have a shared goal today, which is to get the right answers and learn more.

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

Mr Butler (The Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Member for tabling this important Adjournment topic. I hope that, after over 10 years in this place, I have some reputation for having a passion not just for people with learning disabilities but for equitable provision and access to services for anybody who has a learning disability or a physical disability. We are absolutely out of kilter, and there is a lot of work to do.

I will address the issue in two parts. First, I will give you the response. Unfortunately, I will not be giving you good news, except to say that, as the Minister, these are the projects that I am significantly interested in. Every Minister gets the opportunity to bring their particular passion and vision to the job, but I want to be honest with people. I do not want to overpromise and under-deliver, but I can see clearly where change needs to be effected. We need to be honest in our conversations but also to look at the art of the possible as we move forward, because, as Deborah rightly pointed out, we will be measured by the way in which we treat our most vulnerable. That statement was penned by someone who is a lot cleverer than us, but it is the lived reality that we, as legislators, should take very seriously. I thank you for the opportunity, Colm.

I know that this is an important issue for the Members who are in the Chamber, and each of you has credibility in this space. As a former social worker, Colm, you know well what it is like at the coalface. More importantly, however, we are having this discussion in the interests of service users, their families and the carers who support them. They deserve a clear account of where the project stands and what must happen next. This is not simply about an estate or a project in a capital plan; it is about the environment in which adults with complex needs receive care and support and in which dedicated staff work every day.

Is the present accommodation suitable for the long term? No, absolutely not. Is there a clear case for improved facilities? Absolutely, yes. Can I responsibly commit funding before the Executive Budget position and the full costs are clear? No; I have to be fiscally responsible. There is no doubt that there would be significant benefit in developing new adult social care facilities in the Southern Trust area, and the trust itself has put that front and centre of its priorities. It is one of the trust's many priorities.

Indeed, at this point, it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the excellent work that staff have been doing in delivering the best possible services in the current facilities. Their dedication ensures that the highest standards of care and support are provided to those with complex learning disabilities and associated physical care needs. Whilst I recognise the case for investment, I must also be clear about the significant capital and revenue constraints facing the Department at present. Those mean that the timing of any further progress on the project will depend on the capital funding allocated to the Department of Health through the ongoing Budget process and on confirmation that capital costs and any associated recurring costs are affordable and sustainable.

The Oakridge centre is a statutory day-care facility, as has been mentioned, that supports around 28 adults with complex learning disabilities and associated physical care needs across the wider Dungannon area. The centre provides programmes tailored to individual needs, from support with daily living to community participation, with the aim of promoting choice, independence and health and well-being. That person-centred approach is fundamental to adult social care, and I want to see that delivered across Northern Ireland, not just in Dungannon.

The site includes an intensive support unit for people with complex medical and nursing needs, and the bespoke Little Oaks unit. The range of needs supported by Oakridge means that the physical environment must be safe, accessible and flexible enough to respond to people as their circumstances change. The services being provided are consistent with the direction of travel outlined in the draft learning disability service model, which emphasises meaningful day opportunities that promote greater choice and control, independence, health and well-being, and participation in the community.

We all know of the proposed project. I know that Members in the Chamber will be well aware of it. It is important to understand the context. The Oakridge centre has served the local community for many years from its current location on the Drumglass site. However, the building was not purpose-built for that role, having originally been constructed as a sanatorium in 1916, so 110 years ago. Estate assessments and recommendations from the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA) found that the current accommodation is no longer suitable. Mobile units were added to ease capacity pressures, but they were never a long-term answer. They do not remove the need for a coherent facility designed around the people who use it.

In 2019, and this is a big jump, the Southern Health and Social Care Trust submitted an outline business case for a new 42-place statutory day-care unit in Dungannon. That replacement facility would support a modern, flexible and accessible environment for providing person-centred services to individuals with varying care needs. Since then, the project has remained under active consideration in the wider context of capital planning, affordability and the need to prioritise investment across the health and social care estate. Over that time, rising construction costs have had a significant impact on affordability. The estimated cost of the scheme has increased from £8·1 million to £12·7 million. That reflects the wider inflationary pressures, and we know that when these things go to procurement and tender, sometimes that fiscal pressure reality can get worse.

I understand the frustration, felt most keenly by service users, about the time that this has taken when the service could have been better, and that is absolutely accepted. However, it is also a credit to those who provide the support in the unit that they have. Service users, their families and the staff who support them have waited a long time for greater capacity and certainty. They are entitled to ask why a recognised need has not yet resulted in a new facility, and I do not dismiss that frustration. However, as I said, my Department's ability to commit funding to new capital projects across the whole health and social care estate will depend on the final capital allocation from the Department of Finance and the ongoing Budget process. It is important to distinguish between approval in principle and a funded commitment to deliver.

A project may have a strong service case, but the Department can only proceed where funding is available and where recurrent consequences can be met on a sustainable basis. That approach is necessary to ensure that we do not create commitments that cannot be delivered. As part of the Budget 2026 exercise, trusts and other arm's-length bodies of the Department have identified capital funding requirements of over £3 billion for the next four years. The capital funding of around £1·8 billion that has been indicated will be received over that Budget period will be sufficient only to meet inescapable pressures and existing commitments that are there and outlined in the 10-year plan. The Department must balance new investment against the need to maintain existing services, address safety and statutory requirements, replace ageing infrastructure, support digital resilience and progress projects that are already significantly advanced.

To be absolutely clear, I want a number of really important schemes — Oakridge in particular — to succeed and to do so within the expected time frame, but I urge Members to use their influence to help secure the necessary capital funding to deliver them. I do not need to remind Members, although I will, that we are in negotiations with the Secretary of State and Treasury about a fair funding model for Northern Ireland. It is projects such as this that I would like to take to the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister in those negotiations to make the case for that Budget deal and to get some certainty around it so that my Executive colleagues and I can agree a Budget for this place to help us move forward.

I fully understand that Members will wish to press for certainty on individual schemes, particularly where there is a well-established local need. I acknowledge that Mid Ulster District Council has particular concerns about Oakridge. I also understand why families may find discussions of business cases and capital planning remote from their daily experience, but those processes exist for us in reality in the Chamber, sadly. I will not give a commitment today that the Department may not be able to fund tomorrow, because it always comes back to the budget and the funding portfolio within which we work. Once the Executive have agreed a Budget, however, that will allow the Department of Health to develop a capital investment plan that will set out the projects to be taken forward in the next 10 years. The Department will continue to work with trusts to ensure that the business case position remains capable of being urgently updated when the funding position allows. It is probably a piece of work for the trust and its commissioning services to look again at the business case that was identified a number of years ago to ensure that it is fit for purpose and ready to go if a budget ever arrives.

In conclusion, I make it clear that I recognise the need for improved accommodation at Oakridge. The building is old, was not designed for its current purpose and puts real limitations on the delivery of a service that people so badly deserve. I must also make it clear, however, that the Department cannot commit to progressing the project until the wider budget allocation is confirmed and capital and revenue affordability has been established.

My time has run out, I think, but I am happy to take any other questions in the Member's winding-up speech. The Member knows that I am passionate about projects like this, but they are determined by budget, unfortunately.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Minister. You have taken part in a few Adjournment debates, but just so that you are aware, he does not get to wind up; he is finished.

Thank you very much indeed, ladies and gentlemen.