Official Report: Monday 09 November 2026

Mr Kearney: Over recent months, I have highlighted the DUP's indefensible blocking of the 'good jobs' Bill, but a Rubicon has been reached as the DUP has now totally sabotaged any potential for that Bill to become law. It has used lame excuses to deny the Assembly the opportunity to discuss or even vote on the Bill. Since 2025, the DUP has brought a wrecker's agenda into these political institutions. It has systematically undermined power-sharing. It opposes action on holiday hunger and Irish language signage and education. It actively stirs up animosity against minorities, and now it has killed the most important employment rights legislation ever to be brought forward in this state.

The DUP is undeniably anti-workers' rights and anti-trade union. It has treated the Irish Congress of Trade Unions with absolute contempt. From the financial scandal of the renewable heat incentive (RHI) and wrecking our public finances to Brexit and cutting us adrift from vital European funds, the DUP has been the champion of economic illiteracy and political sabotage. It does not care about working people. Having created a sea border for trade, it is now building a sea border on workers' rights. Good luck to DUP representatives when explaining to young people why they cannot keep their tips as hospitality workers in Cardiff, Glasgow or London do. Best of luck when they have to explain why workers here are not entitled to the same pay and conditions as elsewhere or why they have blocked access to special leave for carers and parents.

The DUP has become drunk on mindless, populist, race-to-the-bottom politics. It is anti-equality, anti-rights, anti-worker and anti-progress.

All of that crystallised at the Garvaghy Road. Right-wing, sectarian supremacy did not work there, and it is not going to work in here.

The DUP can huff and puff, and it may yet pull down the institutions, but Sinn Féin will continue to stand up for workers' rights, including those of working-class unionists, whom the DUP has long since abandoned.

Mr Wilson: On Saturday, Fine Gael published its long-awaited blueprint for Irish unity. It was five months in the making, and what proposals has it produced? A forum, a junior Minister and a promise to keep talking. The blueprint came out just days after the Taoiseach set out his own initiative to his parliamentary party. In Dublin, it is therefore a race to look the greenest and has nothing to do with the people whom I represent.

Northern Ireland's place in the United Kingdom rests on the consent of the people who live here. Fine Gael signed up to that principle, and no forum, no secretariat and no five-year talking shop in Dublin will change that. It is the economics, however, that should really give Fine Gael voters cause for deep concern. The party asked its own economist to put a price on Irish unity, and he came back with a bill in the first year of anything up to €25 billion. That is not our number but Fine Gael's. Look at how Fine Gael gets to the cheaper figures. They work only if, in its fantasy, the United Kingdom keeps paying pensions and debt interest after Northern Ireland leaves. Once Dublin picks up that tab, the bill trebles. That is not a plan but wishful thinking with someone else's chequebook.

That is before anyone has asked taxpayers in Cork or Galway whether they want to pay that year after year while their own children cannot find a home. Compare that with what we have. We have a health service that is free at the point of use. We have a UK state pension. Our biggest market is across the Irish Sea, not across the border. We are backed by the fiscal strength of the whole United Kingdom. Not one of those situations gets better by leaving the UK. People here know that, and that is why the Union endures. I also gently remind Fine Gael that British identity here does not need a Dublin committee to protect it. British identity is protected by Northern Ireland's being part of the United Kingdom, which is where it will stay.

Before Dublin sets about planning a fantasy future, it should be honest about its part in our past. In Newry and Armagh, families still live with what was done by terrorists who used the border as a shield, and too many of those families are still waiting for answers. Dublin's own Smithwick tribunal found there to have been collusion in the murders of Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and Superintendent Bob Buchanan yards from the border in my constituency. The Irish state has never faced anything like the scrutiny that it demands of the UK. Dublin should tell the truth about its role in our past before trying to dictate our future.

If the Irish Government want good relations with their neighbours, there is plenty of real work to be done. Unionists will engage, as good neighbours always have done. What we will not do, however, is take part in a process that is designed to dismantle the Union, to which we are proud to belong. Northern Ireland has moved on. Dublin would do well to catch up.

Mr Mathison: I pay tribute to an event that Killyleagh Community Association in my constituency put on last week. It is an exemplary community organisation, involved at every level to ensure that Killyleagh is a fantastic place in which to live.

The association organised a screening of the 'People's Emergency Briefing', a public information film about the real and present challenge of climate change. It managed to pack out the Bridge Community Centre with people wanting to get the scientific evidence and facts on climate change, and a positive and engaged community conversation took place on the back of the screening. I pay tribute to Joe, Carolyn, Sean and all the other members of the Killyleagh Community Association, who took such proactive steps and showed such leadership in the community to facilitate a conversation that was centred on the evidence on climate change: not anecdotal evidence or personal opinion but expert scientific evidence.

I encourage MLAs who have community groups that are interested in the issues impacting on our environment in Northern Ireland to facilitate a screening of the film and to back the call for the UK Government to facilitate a national screening. It is critical that we move the climate change conversation beyond being one about a future threat to being one about an issue that is beginning to affect us in the here and now.

We are at serious risk of hitting a tipping point at which actions that we take may not be able to deal with the issues that we face.

The proactive community leadership that Killyleagh Community Association showed is what we need to tackle the issue. I was pleased to see that the screening was not just a talking shop; on the back of it, the association set up a community resilience group in Killyleagh to look at how, through engagement with statutory agencies, it can better prepare the village to protect itself against extreme weather events, to support the most vulnerable people in such an event and to ensure that issues with access to food for the most vulnerable are addressed. We will undoubtedly see those issues impact on communities across Northern Ireland.

I give credit to the association, but I also highlight 'People's Emergency Briefing' as a film that every MLA should make it their business to watch. I hope that communities across Northern Ireland have the opportunity to screen it.

Mr Burrows: There has been talk of unionism being on its knees: I reject that proposition. The unionist community is resilient and has great hope for the future. Politicians sometimes stumble and fall, but our community is not on its knees. There are challenges. We have seen Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil race each other to publish a blueprint for a united Ireland; we have seen, in a LucidTalk poll, an apparent closing of the gap in constitutional opinion on a united Ireland and the United Kingdom; and, in recent weeks, we have seen a galvanised Sinn Féin after its lawbreaking on the Garvaghy Road.

I am confident about our place in the United Kingdom, but we require better leadership in unionism. First, we need leadership that promotes this people and its place in the United Kingdom; the unique talents of the people of Northern Ireland; our beautiful landscape as a place for people to visit; our economy; and the reasons for being in the United Kingdom, which I will return to. We also need to avoid the big gaffes — the "crocodile" moments — that can temporarily inflate Sinn Féin's standing.

I say to the people of Northern Ireland that the case for staying in the Union is absolutely compelling. These are uncertain times across the world, and Ireland is absolutely defenceless. We are a member of a state that is one of the largest and most powerful military powers in the world. We are protected by our membership of NATO; by GCHQ, MI5 and MI6, our Royal Navy, our army and our air force; and by the fact that we can, if we need to, access at the press of a button scores of other police services through mutual aid. An Garda Síochána and the Irish state are utterly defenceless in this uncertain world. Who would trade our security for absolute insecurity in a united Ireland?

Northern Ireland's economy is growing: we have unique skill sets in cybersecurity, fintech and agriculture. Look at the Irish Republic, however: it is wholly dependent on several pharmaceutical companies for its recent wealth and is extremely vulnerable to global shocks. That is why, after the credit crunch, the United Kingdom bailed out the Irish Republic by £3·25 billion. Why would we leave one of the largest and most successful economies in the world to join one of the most vulnerable?

Finally, we have our peace. The constitutional agreement made through the Belfast Agreement gives us peace. It resolves an ancient conflict to perhaps the greatest extent there has ever been.

Northern Ireland is safer, more secure and more prosperous and is at peace in our United Kingdom. That is where we will stay, but we need leadership that promotes it in the best way and avoids handing own goals to Sinn Féin.

Ms McLaughlin: I highlight a campaign to save St Columba's Primary School in Newbuildings and to give my full support to the parents, pupils, staff and wider school community who are fighting for its future. A petition on the matter will be handed to you, Mr Speaker, later today.

I recently had an opportunity to meet the parents and staff of St Columba's to hear first-hand just how much the school means to them. What was clear from that visit was the strength of feeling in the community, the determination of those involved and their real concern about what the loss of the school would mean to local families.

St Columba's is much more than a building where children go to learn; it is a place where young people are supported, encouraged and given the foundations that they need to thrive. It is a place where friendships are formed, confidence is built and children are given a real sense of belonging.

For the families who rely on that local school, the prospect of losing it is worrying. We must recognise that, when a community such as Newbuildings loses its school, it loses much more than classroom space. It risks losing an important part of its identity and a place that brings families together and helps sustain the wider community. That is particularly important for smaller communities like Newbuildings, where local schools play a real and significant role in their way of life.

I fully recognise the financial and demographic pressures facing our education system; we hear about them every day in the Chamber. Those are real challenges, and difficult decisions will undoubtedly have to be made, but those decisions cannot be driven by numbers alone. They must take account of the needs of children, the impact on families, the accessibility of alternative provision and the long-term consequences for the communities affected. Above all, the best interests of the children must remain at the centre of the decision-making process.

I pay tribute to the parents, the staff and the wider school community, some of whom will be joining us; I can see one in the Public Gallery already. Their commitment and determination are a powerful reflection of how valued the school is. I urge the Minister of Education, when he visits the school on Wednesday, to listen carefully to the voices of the community and give full consideration to the case for keeping St Columba's open. I will continue to stand alongside the St Columba's school community and support its efforts to secure a sustainable future for its school.

Mrs Mason: The conversation on Irish reunification continues to grow. We have already heard it mentioned twice here today by unionists. Look at the LucidTalk result, which shows that 55% of respondents aspire to a united Ireland. The proposals announced by Fine Gael at its ard-fheis over the weekend are a testament to that. I commend the Tánaiste, Simon Harris, for bringing forward that initiative. In recent weeks, the Taoiseach has also announced plans to set up an initiative on constitutional change. That is recognition of the momentum that is building on the issue of Irish unity. Considerable work is under way by parties, including Sinn Féin, and others, including academics, think tanks and civic groups North and South.

Ireland's future is far too important to be confined by party political differences, so I encourage Simon Harris to build on the initiative by engaging with all sections of society across the island and our global Irish diaspora. Central to that must be an inclusive, respectful and genuinely all-Ireland conversation with all sections of society, including our Protestant and unionist neighbours. We must listen, engage and work together to shape a future in which everyone can see themselves. A united Ireland — a new and shared Ireland — will unlock the full potential of our island and provide the basis on which a stronger and fairer society can be built.

The Irish Government must now lead a serious programme of planning and preparation, including the publication of a comprehensive Green Paper on reunification. They must examine the constitutional, political, economic and social implications of change. A constitutional forum should complement that work and help turn ambition into practical preparation.

Article 3 of Bunreacht na hÉireann

expresses our constitutional duty to Irish unity, while the Good Friday Agreement provides the peaceful and democratic pathway for the people to exercise their right to self-determination through a border poll. It is time to plan and prepare for Irish unity. Irish reunification offers an immense opportunity to build a better, fairer and more prosperous future for everyone who calls this island "home".

Mrs Middleton: It was terrible to learn that a female paramedic was viciously assaulted while carrying out her duties at Altnagelvin Hospital this past weekend. I was deeply disturbed to learn of the extent of the injuries sustained by the paramedic. My thoughts and prayers are very much with her, her colleagues and her family as she recovers from the traumatising attack.

Sadly, this latest attack is not a new or first-time occurrence, with more than 72,000 physical and verbal attacks carried out on health and social care staff in Northern Ireland in the past five years. It goes without saying that that figure is completely and utterly deplorable, and, frankly, it is disgusting to note. We must also be mindful that the number is not just a statistic: each number represents a real person. Our healthcare workers dedicate their lives to looking after each and every one of us. Our paramedics, nurses, doctors and wider health and social care staff work tirelessly, often in extremely challenging and pressurised circumstances, to put the needs of others before their own. They attend emergencies, respond to people in their most vulnerable moments and provide care and compassion when it is most needed.

I have experienced that warmth, care and professionalism through my recent experiences and those of my very close family. I can, hand on heart, say that my family and I have always been cared for with the greatest compassion and care. Our healthcare workers put in countless hours because they are committed to helping people and saving lives. They should never have to fear for their physical or emotional safety simply because they are doing their job. There is absolutely no justification for attacking, abusing, threatening or intimidating anyone, least of all our healthcare workers; it is completely unacceptable, and it must never be dismissed as part of their job. There must be a very clear message of zero tolerance for violence against those who work to protect and care for all of us in our communities. Those responsible must be held accountable, and front-line staff must have confidence that their employers, the community and the wider health and justice systems will stand firmly behind them.

I place on record my support and sincere thanks to the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service and our healthcare workers across Foyle and Northern Ireland for the incredible work that they do every single day.

Mrs Guy: I highlight an urgent project that needs to progress at Parkview Special School in Lisburn, which is the refurbishment of the hydrotherapy pool. Recently, alongside my colleague Alderman Amanda Grehan, a long-standing champion of the issue, I visited the school and saw at first hand both the value of the hydrotherapy pool and the challenges facing that important facility. The work and fundraising efforts of the Friends of Parkview demonstrate what can be achieved when a community comes together to champion the needs of children with complex disabilities. The hydrotherapy pool is not a luxury; it is an essential therapeutic and educational resource that supports the delivery of the curriculum and helps pupils to develop physically, emotionally and socially. Hydrotherapy improves mobility, muscle strength, joint movement, respiratory function and sensory regulation. For many children who attend Parkview, it is one of the few places where they can experience a level of movement and independence that is simply not possible elsewhere. One parent told me about her son, who cannot walk when he is on land but can in the pool, and he gets to experience his body in an entirely different way.

The school's hydrotherapy facilities were built when Parkview opened in 1997 for around 75 pupils. Today, the school serves more than 200 young people, many with increasingly complex needs, yet the pool infrastructure is now almost three decades old. The existing equipment is reaching the end of its lifespan, heating and ventilation systems are outdated, and key accessibility improvements are required to ensure that the facility can continue to meet the needs of pupils safely and effectively. The proposed refurbishment would modernise the facility by upgrading the pool mechanics, improving changing and shower facilities, installing a new overhead hoist system and implementing measures that would allow greater accessibility for children with severe physical disabilities. It would also create opportunities for enhanced therapeutic provision and, in the longer term, greater community and family access.

Discussions on the refurbishment have been going on for a considerable period. In January 2026, representatives were advised that plans and approvals would take approximately six months, followed by 16 to 24 weeks of construction works. Yet, 10 months later, families and staff are still waiting to see meaningful progress. I am always grateful for the efforts of Education Authority officials, who have assisted with minor improvement works to date. However, families, staff and pupils deserve certainty about the future of the project. They deserve a realistic timetable and a clear commitment that no further unnecessary delays will be allowed to stand in the way of that much-needed investment. The children and young people of Parkview cannot afford to wait indefinitely. It is time to move from plans and proposals to delivery.

Mr Sheehan: The DUP is planning to veto my Irish-medium Education (Workforce Plan) Bill with a petition of concern. Let us spell out what it is trying to stop: a requirement to plan for enough teachers, classroom assistants and special educational needs staff for children learning through Irish. The sector told the Education Committee clearly why the Bill was needed: schools face staff shortages, teachers are overstretched and children need support. The Bill would require the Department to plan properly to meet those needs.

The DUP's response is to reach for a veto. What exactly threatens it? Is it a child having a teacher or a pupil with special educational needs getting support through the language in which they learn? Those children deserve the same opportunities as every other child. Their education should never depend on whether the DUP approves of their language. It is part of the same old, ugly, sectarian pattern of Sammy Wilson describing Irish as a "leprechaun language"; Gregory Campbell saying "curry my yoghurt" and dismissing demands for Irish language legislation, saying that it would be treated as "toilet paper"; Paul Givan wishing children a happy Christmas as he cut their Líofa bursary; and Gordon Lyons going to the courts to block Irish language signs. The list goes on. Now, the DUP wants to add blocking a workforce plan for Irish-medium schools to that record. It is nothing but anti-Irish bigotry.

The DUP talked about punishing Sinn Féin. It is not us that you are punishing; it is children who wish to learn through the Irish language, and they, their families and their schools will bear the consequences. A safeguard intended to protect minorities is being turned against children educated through a minority language. That is a disgraceful abuse of its purpose. The DUP should abandon this attempt, allow the Assembly to vote and explain why it is so determined to prevent planning for those children's education.

Miss McIlveen: In Remembrance Week, I pay tribute to the memory of Lieutenant Colonel Robert Blair "Paddy" Mayne DSO with three bars. He was one of the most remarkable military figures to emerge from Northern Ireland, and his name will for ever be synonymous with Newtownards.

Born in Newtownards in 1915, Blair Mayne went on to become a founding member and commanding officer of the Special Air Service (SAS), playing a pivotal role in its development and successes during the Second World War. He was not only a highly decorated soldier but an accomplished rugby international who represented Ireland and the British Lions. He was also a solicitor and secretary of the Law Society of Northern Ireland. His courage, leadership and extraordinary contribution to the war effort earned him a place among the most distinguished soldiers of his generation.

Newtownards is extremely proud of its association with that remarkable man. His legacy is embedded in the town's history. He was born, educated, lived and, tragically, died in the town. He passed away on 14 December 1955 at just 40 years of age.

Yesterday, at 9.00 am on Remembrance Sunday, a fitting tribute to his memory took place in Newtownards, led by Lieutenant Colonel Simon Nichols MBE and William Gilliland of Excel Clothing, where the event was held and where Blair Mayne's birthplace once stood. The event was organised by a dedicated organising committee. The gathering included a wreath-laying ceremony and a ceremonial toast in Blair Mayne's memory. It was a simple but moving ceremony, attended by ex-servicemen, traders and local representatives who gathered to remember a giant of the town, who is described as the bravest man never to have won the Victoria Cross.

I and others look forward to it becoming an annual event to pay tribute to a man who, through his brave exploits, put his life on the line time and time again for the freedoms that we hold dear.

Finally, I express my support for the ongoing campaign to award Blair Mayne a posthumous Victoria Cross, which he so fittingly deserves for his repeated acts of valour in the face of the enemy during the Second World War. While he did not seek recognition — his focus was always on the mission and the welfare of his comrades, and, for him, it was about serving with excellence and dedication to his fellow soldiers and his country — for us, as a country, it is our way of recognising that gallantry and selfless service.

Mr Speaker: You have two minutes, Ms Sheerin.

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

When my mum first moved to south Derry in 1993, she quickly found herself in the middle of a warm and welcoming community; indeed, many of our neighbours on the Bancran Road became family friends overnight. You can imagine her shock and surprise on her first visit to Magherafelt, our closest shopping town, when, just as she was about to step over the threshold of a big shop in the town at the time, she saw a job advertisement in the window with the words "No Catholic need apply" emblazoned at the bottom.

In 2026, the notion that your religious background would be a factor in whether you were successful in getting a job for which you had applied is an alien concept to many people, but it appears that some in the DUP would like to drag us back to those days. "No Fenian First Minister" is their cry. Well, Michelle O'Neill is the First Minister. On Thursday night, I was proud to stand beside her in Cookstown as we held our Assembly election candidate launch. I am always proud to stand beside Michelle O'Neill. She is a constituency colleague, has been a friend and mentor to me for many years and is somebody who embodies leadership. She does not just talk about leadership but demonstrates it in her actions. Michelle does not just represent the people who vote for her, for us, for you or — well, you know what I mean: the TUV Member has not had any votes yet.

Yesterday, the DUP blocked Michelle from attending a Remembrance Sunday commemoration; an event that she wanted to attend in the spirit of her leadership because she believes that everybody has the right to remember their dead. She demonstrates time and again that she is willing to reach across and show real leadership. In recent days, the DUP hissy fit has been accompanied by shameful language such as we heard from Diane Forsythe, when she said that a majority of the unionist community did not want to see Michelle O'Neill as First Minister.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Ms Sheerin: I remind members of the DUP that the days of a small minority holding a veto over —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Ms Sheerin: — who gets to work where are over. We are not going back to those days. The DUP does not want to lead for everybody or make this place work.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Ms Sheerin: It is interested only in domination.

Mr Speaker: Ciara Ferguson has sought leave to present a public petition in accordance with Standing Order 22. The Member will have up to three minutes to speak.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The petition is to save St Columba's Primary School, Newbuildings and has come from the school's committee, pupils, parents, staff and board of governors. It has received over 6,160 signatures from across the city and all political backgrounds. The petition is against development proposal 754 and calls on the Education Authority to fully explore every reasonable alternative to the closure and give St Columba's Primary School a fair opportunity to demonstrate that it has a sustainable future before an irreversible decision is made. The signatories formally object to the proposed closure of St Columba's Primary School, Newbuildings and ask that development proposal 754 is not approved.

St Columba's Primary School is a small, valued local school at the heart of Newbuildings. It provides a nurturing environment where children are known individually, supported and encouraged to thrive. The school also plays a vital role in the wider life of the village. Through its close relationship with the neighbouring Newbuildings Primary School, children from different traditions have opportunities to learn, play and build friendships together in their own community. It is also a green flag Eco-School, reflecting its commitment to environmental learning, pupil responsibility and positive involvement in the wider community.

St Columba's makes an important and valuable contribution not only to education but to parental choice, shared education, good relations and community cohesion. Its proposed closure at this time is premature. The circumstances of the school and the wider village are changing. Pupil numbers have the potential to grow, while new families have expressed an interest in the school. There is significant new housing growth taking place in Newbuildings, with further development planned. Closing the school now would risk dispersing children at precisely the time when the village is growing and the school is demonstrating renewed confidence and potential.

We believe that decisions about the future of a school should consider more than historical pupil numbers alone. Before any irreversible decision is made, the Education Authority should fully consider all reasonable options. It should look at the recent and potential enrolment growth and the new housing plans. It should do a full equality impact assessment in order to understand the consequences of closure on the pupils, their families and the wider community. It should look at the wider financial pressure caused by chronic underfunding; how individual parents were engaged in consultation; the support given to the school to grow; its potential for having integrated status; the established shared education partnership and its contribution to good relations; the potential for nursery provision; parental choice; and securing a sustainable future.

We call on the Education Authority to explore fully every reasonable alternative to the closure and give St Columba's Primary School, representatives of which are here today, a fair opportunity to demonstrate, before an irreversible decision is made, that it has a sustainable future.

Mr Speaker: I will forward the petition to the Minister of Education and send a copy to the Committee for Education.

Mr Speaker: I have received correspondence from the First Minister and the deputy First Minister requesting to reschedule questions to the Executive Office today. The Business Committee will reschedule those questions at its meeting tomorrow. It has also agreed to add a motion to revise the Order Paper to suspend Standing Order 20(1) to allow business to continue until 2.45 pm, when questions to the Minister of Finance will be taken.

Mr Clarke: I beg to move

Mr Speaker: Before I proceed to the Question, I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support.

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs that he wishes to make a statement. I remind Members to be concise in asking their questions.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Today marks the commencement of COP31, at which world leaders, experts and civil society representatives are gathering under the vision "A turning point for climate action". With global warming set to overshoot 1·5°C and the ambitions of the Paris agreement almost certainly missed, world leaders must put their shoulders to the wheel. It is vital that we make the changes that that turning point requires for a cleaner, prosperous and more resilient future.

All of us in the Chamber must recognise that the effects of climate change are no longer distant projections or abstract concerns. It has been said that Northern Ireland's contribution to global emissions is negligible and that we should not match the ambition of others in reducing emissions. The reality, however, is that 40% of global annual greenhouse gas emissions stem from countries that individually contribute less than 2% to annual totals. The case for climate action is irrefutable, and responsible Governments must act on the clear evidence that is available, plan for the risks before us and grasp the opportunities from decarbonisation.

Global warming is real. It is here. It is already being felt by citizens across Northern Ireland from the storms tearing through public infrastructure that have left people without power and businesses and houses under water to the coastal communities that are left to wonder whether their homes will be there in years to come and from the wetter winters that have left farmers with flooded fields to the warmer summers that have brought animal diseases that had never reached our shores before, the blue-green algae that is plaguing a warmer Lough Neagh and the wildfires that are devastating the Mournes, Sperrins and elsewhere. We ignore those signs at our peril, because the cost of inaction will be catastrophic; indeed, the financial burden is already mounting. Last year, the Executive allocated over £17 million to help respond to storm Éowyn, including repairs to schools and wider infrastructure. The independent Office for Budget Responsibility has warned that climate damage will cost a massive 8% of the UK’s GDP by the early 2070s. The fossil fuel roller coaster is brutally punishing our people, as the costs of petrol, diesel, gas and home heating oil soar. Is it any surprise that 74% of people here want to see politicians do more to tackle climate change?

Just two weeks ago, I was delighted to attend a screening of the 'People's Emergency Briefing', which provided a powerful reminder of the need for decisive and urgent action. The briefing is being screened in communities, workplaces, cinemas, village halls and churches across the UK to raise awareness and build support for a live, government-led, televised emergency briefing on the climate and nature crisis. I applaud that initiative, which is led by top experts and supported by local volunteers, and urge everyone in the Chamber to attend a screening near them.

Despite all those warnings and inconvenient truths, there is hope. The benefits of acting are significant, and the costs of reaching net zero are reducing all the time, as clean technologies get cheaper. The Climate Change Committee recently estimated that, for each £1 spent on transitioning to net zero, we realise up to £4·10 in benefits, including energy savings, warmer homes and reduced pressures on household budgets.

The work of Lord Stern, an esteemed economist, sets out how climate action and economic development go together. If we act now, climate action can create significant opportunities, but delay increases costs and risks exponentially. As Stern has said, we have in our hands:

Businesses in Northern Ireland recognise that and are embracing the decarbonisation challenge. Many have signed up to Business in the Community's climate action pledge, including Almac, Belfast Harbour, Danske Bank, Encirc, the Galgorm Group, GRAHAM, the Henry Group, Hughes Insurance, Northern Ireland Water, Translink and Wrightbus. We must support businesses on that journey to realise the benefits of climate action for everyone. We cannot afford to lose ground to our competitors and leave future generations to bear the cost of dither, delay and denial in the face of the evidence that is in front of us.

It was against that backdrop that the Programme for Government commitment to publish a green growth strategy was made. Green growth is a globally accepted and OECD-recognised approach that focuses on fostering economic growth and development while protecting the natural environment on which prosperity ultimately depends. It is about using the move from an economy with high greenhouse gas emissions to a net zero economy to improve people’s quality of life through green jobs and a clean environment. In December 2024, I brought a draft green growth strategy to the Executive for approval, yet, frustratingly, it remains there nearly two years later. The heel-dragging of others will not deter me from leading our response to the climate and biodiversity crisis and pursuing the opportunities presented by clean growth and a green economy. The question is not why we should take climate action but why we would want Northern Ireland to miss out on the benefits that are on offer.

Going forward, our approach must be built around the following key principles: respecting our planet by restoring and protecting the environment, because we depend on a healthy and resilient natural world; reducing greenhouse gas emissions across all sectors by encouraging and enabling informed choices and innovation to support our path to net zero; reducing our wasteful use of resources through greater efficiency and an increasingly diverse and circular economy; leading by example by inspiring ambition, innovation and courage for change; collaborating through working and learning together to develop solutions that maximise the outcomes that we want to see; using all the tools available by selecting the right mix, including investment in research and development; sharing responsibility by ensuring that we act in a way that supports a just and fair transition to a net-zero, nature-rich society; re-evaluating, recognising and rewarding what matters; and measuring progress by being open and transparent about progress made through continuous learning and improvement based on data and science.

At the heart of our new green economy must be clean growth, delivering a society that enjoys a low-carbon, nature-rich future; reaping the advantages of good green jobs and skills in the expanding green sector; and improving health and well-being. I intend to convene a summit of key stakeholders from across business and civil society to discuss how we can drive forward those principles and ensure that we maximise the opportunity to simultaneously reduce our emissions, restore our natural environment and sustainably grow our economy.

I am determined to drive progress in my Department, and I am proud to draw Members' attention to the broad range of work that is supported by sound science.

Since the Assembly's restoration in 2024, I have worked hard to meet our legal requirements under the Northern Ireland and UK-wide climate change legislation passed in 2022 and 2008. Northern Ireland's first climate action plan (CAP) has been with the Executive since August this year. It is ready to go and details policies and proposals to meet the first carbon budget. It will accelerate progress and deliver tangible benefits: more clean, renewable energy; warmer, energy-efficient buildings; and a more productive, sustainable agri-food sector. Crucially, it will build confidence to invest in our future. Every delay, however, risks higher future costs; missed investment and funding opportunities; slower development of green skills and jobs; and lost environmental, health and community benefits.

Many climate action plan costs fall within existing programmes. They are not new. The recent A5 judgement has clarified that progressing infrastructure and climate action are not mutually exclusive. The argument that we must rip up the Climate Change Act to deliver the A5 has been exposed as entirely untrue. Major infrastructure projects and climate action are not incompatible. The judgement also reinforces the responsibility on every Department to demonstrate that its decisions are consistent with the obligations placed on it by the Act. Meeting those obligations demands shared ownership across the Executive.

Our third climate change adaptation programme was published earlier this year, focusing on building resilience to protect communities across Northern Ireland. The programme turns collaboration into action through more than 280 commitments. Recruitment to the Just Transition Commission is under way, with that important new body due to be up and running early next year, ensuring a fair and just transition to net zero. The just transition fund for agriculture is in its second year, providing dedicated support for our farmers as we move to net zero. My Department's multi-million-pound sustainable agriculture programme (SAP) also provides essential levers for agriculture to contribute to Northern Ireland's statutory climate change obligations. SAP investments include the beef sustainability package; the bovine genetics project, as showcased last night by 'Countryfile'; the sustainable farm investment scheme; and the carbon footprinting project.

The carbon footprinting project has been developed to provide each farm business in Northern Ireland with a whole-farm, enterprise-level and product-level carbon footprint. That will identify the sources of emissions on farms, while the associated training will help identify steps and mitigations that farm businesses can apply to reduce emissions. Applying the mitigations can lead to improved efficiency on-farm, helping farm businesses to reduce costs and save money. Implementing sustainability initiatives demonstrates to the supply chain the positive steps that producers in Northern Ireland are taking to help the industry maintain a competitive advantage and continue to provide the world-class products for which it is known.

Regulations requiring climate change reporting by 40 specified public bodies are now in place. All have submitted their first mitigation and adaptation reports, including local councils, embedding public-sector climate action, providing transparency and identifying further action.

We cannot and will not stop there. The second climate action plan must mark a step change in ambition backed by credible action and clear delivery. In our second climate action plan, clean, green energy must increase substantially, providing the benefits of renewable power alongside better-insulated and warmer, low-carbon homes and buildings. The way that we travel must also continue to change for the better, with investment focusing on sustainable travel and encouraging modal shift to bus, train, walk and wheel.

We will build on existing foundations in forestry, peatlands and land management. Our ambition is to have more trees, restored peatlands and better-managed land to reduce emissions and capture carbon. On waste, we must step up moves to prevent, reduce, reuse and recycle. In fisheries, our emissions contribution may be small, but our ambition must remain strong, with sustainably managed marine resources, resilient coastal communities and the protection of the natural assets on which the industry depends. That is my vision for CAP 2: bold action, lower emissions, thriving nature and a stronger economy.

In conclusion, my position is clear. I want Northern Ireland to seize the opportunities presented by the global transition to a net zero economy. I want us to attract investment, create skilled jobs, protect our natural assets and build stronger, healthier and more resilient communities. Some, however, appear to have chosen a different course. In doing so, they have increased the risk that we will fall behind our competitors and forfeit economic, environmental and societal benefits that could otherwise be realised. Rolling back on our climate goals will make us all poorer in the long run, leaving people here exposed to the costs of extreme weather, global food shortages and fuel price shocks. History will not be kind to those who dither, delay and deny the realities that we face.

Northern Ireland was at the forefront of the industrial revolution. The low-carbon industrial revolution is an opportunity for us to lead the world again in a just and fair way. I for one will embrace climate action and all the benefits, with a just and fair transition at its heart.

Mr McCrossan: Minister, whilst there were a lot of words in that statement, it was light on detail and not specific about how any of those aspirations will be achieved. It will come as little comfort to the farming community. You say, Minister, that your climate action plan is ready to go, yet your statement gives farmers no clear figures on what it will cost them or what it could mean for farm incomes, livestock numbers and food production. Listing existing schemes is not the same as demonstrating that farmers can afford the changes that you expect them to make in the here and now. Minister, will you publish the assessment of those impacts and identify the funding available to meet the costs and how you can credibly promise a just transition without showing that smaller family farms remain financially viable?

Mr Muir: I do not know whether the Member was in the Chamber, but there was quite a lot of detail in my statement about the actions that we are taking to address the defining issue of our generation, which is climate change. The first climate action plan is supported by significant investment through the sustainable agriculture programme. It does not result in herd reduction. I have been very clear that we are focused on science, technology and innovation to support farming in Northern Ireland. It is important that we give certainty to the sectors across Northern Ireland to get this climate action plan published and then focus on the second climate action plan. That is where my focus is now, because, with the first climate action plan, a lot of that work has already been undertaken and is already out on the ground. We need to now focus on the second CAP.

Ms Murphy: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, you have stated that the draft green growth strategy was brought to the Executive almost two years ago in December 2024. Who is preventing its progress, and what action are you taking to secure an agreement?

Mr Muir: Thank you. The simple answer is the DUP. I thank the Sinn Féin Ministers who have come back constructively with feedback around this, but there has been no constructive engagement from the DUP in relation to that paper. Government is about partnership and cooperation, but it is also about engagement; I am not seeing that from the DUP. I will not stand here and allow the DUP to block progress. We have massive opportunities from climate action. We can deliver good green jobs, warmer homes and more sustainable travel. There are many benefits around this, and that is why I am forging ahead. I have set out the principles that are going to guide us, and we are going to bring together stakeholders and businesses and grasp the opportunities for green growth. The obstruction from the DUP is damaging Northern Ireland, but I will not let the DUP away with it.

Mr Wilson: Minister, my inbox contains hundreds of emails from farmers who are concerned about the issue of on-farm carbon audits. Farmers want to continue to care for their, and our, environment. However, they are deeply concerned by what the carbon audit process will mean for their farms, their incomes and their livelihoods. Farmers are greatly exercised by that matter, as you will be well aware. Minister, for farmers, there is a costly trajectory attached to this anxiety-inducing carbon audit proposal that stretches beyond the current mandate. With that firmly in mind, what can you say today to the hundreds of farmers who have been in touch with me and who disagree with that proposal and its financially penalising consequences?

Mr Muir: I am surprised at some of the questions that I am getting on this, because I set out, in May 2024, the plan to introduce the carbon footprinting project and make it a conditionality of the farm sustainability payment. It is a key benefit for farming in Northern Ireland. It is an investment in the future of farming and food production in Northern Ireland. Profitable farming and carbon-efficient farming are two sides of the same coin. This project, which is fully funded by my Department, will provide participating farm businesses with a robust carbon footprint at whole-farm-enterprise and product level. Importantly, it is not simply about producing a carbon number. It is about giving farmers better information about their businesses and helping them use that information to make practical decisions to improve profitability. A carbon footprint will help a farmer understand where emissions arise within their business. Alongside the associated training and support, it will identify practical actions that can improve performance. Many of the actions that will reduce emissions can also improve farm efficiency through efficient use of feed, fertiliser and energy, improved animal performance and better use of other inputs. The real opportunity is therefore to turn carbon data into a road map towards greater efficiency, productivity and, ultimately, profitability.

There is also a much bigger opportunity for Northern Ireland that we should simply not allow to pass us by. Our objective is to establish a consistent approach to carbon footprinting across the sector, with farms using a common methodology and calculator. If we can achieve that at scale, Northern Ireland will be at the forefront internationally in having consistent and credible carbon information across its farming industry. That would be a significant competitive advantage, which might well be lost if we fail to focus on the big picture in the long term. Northern Ireland already has an excellent reputation for producing high-quality food. I want us to build on that reputation so that we can increase the market share of Northern Ireland produce and put our best foot forward.

Dr Aiken: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, you will be aware that, at COP31, one of the key issues on the presidency's action agenda is clean energy transition. Indeed, in your second climate action plan, you talk about the benefits of renewable power alongside that. What conversations have you had with your ministerial colleagues about the delay to the North/South interconnector? You have already talked about DUP Ministers, but what about the Sinn Féin Ministers? Unless the interconnector is built, we will never meet any of those energy targets.

Mr Muir: I am very conscious of the opportunities from renewable energy here and of our obligations to upgrade the grid so that we can facilitate those. That issue primarily sits with the Economy Minister. My most recent engagement with her was about our biomethane strategy. We have launched a joint consultation on that and encourage people to respond to it. Where there is a joint endeavour to be undertaken and benefits to be grasped, I will not be found wanting.

Mr Blair: I start by declaring an interest as chair of the all-party group on climate action. The Climate Change Committee chair, Nigel Topping, during his recent visit to Northern Ireland, said that not to grasp the opportunities presented by climate action is "dumb, dumb, dumb". Does the Minister agree with that assessment? What engagement did he have with the chair when he was here?

Mr Muir: Thank you, John. It was a really good visit by Nigel Topping, the chair of the Climate Change Committee. I am grateful to him for making the journey here and engaging with so many people, not just me but informally with the Committee and stakeholders across Northern Ireland. I could not agree more with Nigel's analysis. To reject the opportunities from climate action that can deliver good green jobs and renewable energy, bring down people's bills and deliver energy security is "dumb, dumb, dumb". We should not reject those opportunities; we should grasp them. I value the role of the Climate Change Committee and the analysis and advice that it provides, and I am determined that we continue on the road to decarbonisation, because there is not only an imperative to do it but real benefits from doing it.

Ms Finnegan: I thank the Minister for his statement this afternoon. Minister, you speak of a just transition, and we know how important it is to apply just transition principles. How will you ensure that the cost of climate action does not fall disproportionately on low-income households, rural communities and farming families?

Mr Muir: A just transition is critical. Often, it is the least well-off who feel the consequences of environmental damage, and we are seeing that in relation to Lough Neagh, for example. I am proud of the legislation that we passed in 2022, which has the just transition principle running throughout it. I am determined to make sure that that becomes a reality. That is why we are setting up the Just Transition Commission. I thank you for your support for the regulations that we passed in that regard. We are recruiting and hope to have the commission up and running early in the new year. In addition, we are in the second year of our dedicated fund — the just transition fund for agriculture — which provides support to our farmers in Northern Ireland. A just transition cannot just be seen as something in legislation; it has to be a reality. We have to learn lessons from the past. Economic growth has to be just and fair, and that is what we want to achieve through green growth. I enjoy working with Economy Minister, Caoimhe Archibald, because we are on the same page on that.

Mrs Erskine: Minister, you are all stick and no carrot — literally. Our farmers produce the food that we need here in Northern Ireland, yet they face concerns about already tight margins and regulatory demands. No harm, but you are the same Minister who refused to do a cost-benefit analysis of climate change in your Department, yet you are placing a penalty scheme on farmers as a result of carbon audits that will be mandatory.

That is 10% cuts to farm payments from May 2029, rising to 15% thereafter if they do not comply. Minister, why are you turning carbon audits into mandatory penalty schemes for our family farms?

Mr Muir: The main premise of the question is entirely inaccurate: it is not the case that there is no carrot. Some £330 million will be delivered this year and in future years to support agriculture, agrienvironment, fisheries and rural development in Northern Ireland. I fought hard to secure that funding, and we are delivering that on the ground. In addition, we have the just transition fund for agriculture and the sustainable farming investment scheme. Significant funding is being delivered out the door to support farmers and rightly so, because I want to thank them for the good work that they do.

On the cost-benefit analysis, if the Member had listened to my statement, she would have heard that I made the benefits of climate action clear. The fact that the DUP cannot see that tells us yet more about its economic illiteracy. The clear message from consumers, retailers, banks and processors on carbon footprinting is that they want to know about scope 3 emissions. I will not have Northern Ireland lose its competitive edge because of the short-sighted approach of the DUP.

Mr Mathison: I was pleased to hear the Minister's support for the 'People's Emergency Briefing', a screening of which he attended in his constituency. I took the opportunity to attend a screening hosted by Killyleagh Community Association just last week. At that screening, I was struck by the fact that climate change is clearly set out on an evidential basis as a "now problem", not a "tomorrow problem": action is required not at some mystery point in the future but now. On that basis, does the Minister agree that the public should be afforded the opportunity to see a screening of 'People's Emergency Briefing' at Parliament Buildings?

Mr Muir: I agree 100%, Nick. I really valued the opportunity to see it, as you did. I congratulate the volunteers who are organising screenings across Northern Ireland to ensure that we are aware of the risks of the climate and nature crisis. It is critical that we act in response to the crisis. That is why I felt that it was important that I came to the Chamber today to outline the actions that I am taking and will seek to take as Minister. History will not judge well those who deny the realities of climate change and deflect from the need to face up to the opportunities that can come from decarbonising our society. It is important that the Member's request is fully considered by the Assembly and that 'People's Emergency Briefing' is screened in Parliament Buildings.

Mrs Dillon: Minister, my question follows on from your reference to the DUP's economic illiteracy and addresses the DUP's closed-mindedness on the issue. DUP Members were clapping in delight at the blocking of the A5 project, but we did not hear much from them once the blockage was removed. That happened thanks to the good work of your Department with DFI to ensure that the fact that climate action and major infrastructure projects are not incompatible was demonstrated. What practical lessons should Departments take from that judgement when advancing future infrastructure projects that will benefit people across our community?

Mr Muir: Thank you very much. I am still waiting for apologies from a number of people who made assertions about the A5 case. I will wait for that. Inaccurate information was circulated.

It is very clear that climate action and major infrastructure investment are not incompatible. As an Executive, however, we need to be clear about the opportunities that can come from climate action and to grasp them. Sitting on the first climate action plan and the green growth strategy is contrary to what, businesses tell me, should be done. There are opportunities to be had from decarbonisation, and we must grasp those opportunities.

Ms K Armstrong: I am surprised to hear DUP Members talking out of both sides of their mouths today. Recently, I was in a Housing Executive house to witness the sustainable energy solutions that are being provided to help homeowners save an absolute fortune. It is that type of green economy that will provide for the poorest in our society. Minister, will you give us an update on your vision for clean growth and a clean economy? What does that look like?

Mr Muir: It is an absolute dereliction of duty to deny the realities of climate change and not to grasp the opportunities, because that perpetuates people being ploughed into fuel poverty and feeling the consequences of that. People are entitled to have warmer homes and not to be stuck on the fossil fuel roller coaster.

The vision for 2050 is very clear. It is for Northern Ireland to take the action that is needed to transition from being a high-emissions society to a net zero-emissions, nature-rich society in which we reap the economic, social, health and environmental benefits of having a thriving green economy. We have made that transition just and fair for all, with equality, inclusivity and social justice at the heart of our decisions and with good jobs accessible to everyone, especially the most vulnerable in society. How could Members not agree with that?

Mrs Guy: I thank the Minister for his statement and for his genuine commitment to leading on climate action, especially in the face of denial about the risks of climate change and about the opportunities from a just transition to net zero. Does the Minister support a green new deal for Northern Ireland?

Mr Muir: If we continue with our commitment to decarbonisation, there are massive opportunities for a green new deal for Northern Ireland. That is where, in the Budget discussions, we need to lift our heads and place a wider focus on economic growth. We should make that case to the UK Government not just for the block grant but for how we can incentivise good green jobs for Northern Ireland. I made that case to Prime Minister Starmer and will continue to make it to the UK Government. There are opportunities for a green new deal for Northern Ireland, whereby we focus on the green jobs and the green growth that we can deliver in Northern Ireland, ensuring that we have a green economy that delivers for everyone.

Mr Gaston: We have in front of us a 13-page word salad from the Minister of dither and delay when it comes to protecting our family farms. The nutrients action programme (NAP), the Climate Change Act and carbon audits all point towards devastating our family farms through destocking livestock numbers. At what point, Minister, is food security factored into any of your climate change ideology? From what I see, you would rather have beef and lamb brought in from across the world than have home-grown, top-quality produce produced here on our doorstep.

Mr Muir: This is not ideology; it is science. The Member does not respect science, however, and I have got used to that from the Trumpian language that he uses and the attitude that he takes to life.

What is the biggest threat to farming in Northern Ireland? It is climate change, and we must face up to that. We all know about the projections for the impact that climate change will have on agriculture, and not facing up to that and dealing with the issues in hand will deliver a very grim future for farming. Farming is the sector that is most vulnerable to climate change, and it is important that, together, we face up to that, address the risks and reap the benefits from dealing with it. I commend the many farmers who do not subscribe to the nonsense from the Member. They know the importance of the issue, are investing in nature-friendly farming and are getting on with the job.

Mr Martin: My knowledge of the subject is limited, but I married a farmer's daughter, so I know a little about it — a farmer's daughter from Fermanagh.

I have listened to the Minister. No one is denying climate change, so it is unfair to say that Members are. That is the first point that I put to him: no one is saying that. I have listened to him, and I have read his statement. The Member who spoke previously made a couple of reasonable points but was shot down.

I will pose some questions to the Minister. My understanding of some of the policy stuff is that it will, in some way, target farmers in Northern Ireland and reduce the level of supply. That supply will then be replaced by beef bought from Brazil and lamb bought from New Zealand. I do not understand why on earth we would want to incentivise the massive climate impact of the two examples that I have given rather than rear and farm livestock in Northern Ireland, where doing so is more environmentally friendly, the standards are higher and there is less environmental impact than from bringing it in. Will the Minister consider that?

Mr Muir: I am trying to work through an answer to your question, but you said that nobody was denying climate change: speak to Sammy Wilson. He is one of your MPs and a well-known climate change denier. Your party is known for denying the realities and the science on so many issues, including climate change. I am very clear that there is no targeting of anyone; it is about respecting the science and building a better future for Northern Ireland. All that you can do —.

Mr Givan: You cannot answer the question.

Mr Muir: I am trying to answer the multiple questions that the Member raised. He said that people are being targeted: no one is being targeted. The Member is aware of the actions that my Department is taking to deliver sustainability using science and innovation. There is no proposal for livestock reduction in the first CAP. Your Ministers on the Executive will know that, because the paper has been sitting there since August. We are investing in science and technology. We are moving forward and working in partnership through investing in nature-friendly farming.

There is a fundamental challenge: we have to reduce our emissions, and we need to build resilience to climate change. On the latter, in conjunction with the Infrastructure Minister, I will, in the next number of weeks, bring a paper to the Executive on coastal erosion. All I ask is that it does not go with the rest of the papers that are sitting in a pile on the deputy First Minister's desk.

Mr T Buchanan: Minister, you and I know that our farming businesses are the custodians of the countryside. Over the past number of years, farmers have made huge strides in improving the environment. We also know that your push for net zero equates to only 0·04% of the overall climate target. Yet and all, that is having devastating consequences for our farming community. Rather than bury your head in the sand like an ostrich, why not carry out an assessment of the damage that has been caused to our farming community and our food production? Will the Minister give an undertaking to do that?

Mr Muir: I set out in my statement the cost-benefit analysis of climate action. The regulatory impact assessment of the first climate action plan, which has been sitting with the Executive since August, sets out the impact in terms of the benefits to Northern Ireland. We are clear about this. If the DUP does not like the first climate action plan, the first thing that it should do is to tell me what its issues are. This is the issue with the Executive: papers go in, but you do not even engage or have the respect for your ministerial colleagues to resolve the issues. That does not apply just to me; it applies to Caoimhe, as the Economy Minister, and others. I am about making the Executive work, while other people clearly are not.

Mr O'Toole: It is clear that some people are more interested in the same old green and orange than a green new deal, but we knew that several years ago. There are lots of good things in the statement, but it is mostly a list of things that are either already happening or that you would like to happen but cannot make happen. Does that mean, looking backwards to when the Executive was formed and looking forward to when the next Executive is formed, that it would have been and would be better to secure clear, upfront agreement that things like the climate action plan as needed and, indeed, an independent environmental protection agency will be delivered, so that we can be clear that things will be delivered rather than gummed up in an Executive who are not delivering?

Mr Muir: The fundamental matter here, Matthew, is the reform of the institutions. It is not just about climate change; issues such as minimum unit pricing for alcohol and Caoimhe's 'good jobs' Bill require reform of the institutions, not just in how the Assembly works but in how the Executive work. We made that case clearly to the Secretary of State last week. While we will continue our efforts to get a Budget agreed, we also need political stability. We need to make sure not only that the institutions work and that one party cannot apply a veto on issues but that the culture of crisis and collapse is ended. It is incumbent on the UK Government to push ahead with that. We have made that case consistently, and we will continue to do so. We are glad that the Irish Government support us, and it is important that the UK Government get it across the line. The wielding of a veto by a single party is anti-democratic.

Mr McGlone: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire.

I do not want to be caught in the "Good cop, bad cop" arrangement that seems to be going on between the DUP and the Alliance Party today, but I have a genuine question for the Minister. Those of us who represent rural areas have been inundated with emails about mandatory carbon footprinting. On behalf of the many small farm businesses in our rural areas that are eking out an existence, I ask the Minister to give an assurance that there will be no additional costs associated with mandatory carbon footprinting and that that will not lead to the reduction of farm herds and stocks or questions about the viability of those farms.

Mr Muir: Thank you, Patsy. The carbon footprinting project has been developed in partnership with the wider agri-food industry through the DAERA-established carbon farming partnership, which brings together representatives from farming, agri-food processing and the wider supply chain, alongside environmental NGOs. The partnership approach is important, because the transition to a lower-carbon economy is not an issue for farmers alone: processors, retailers, banks and other businesses that are connected to agriculture are increasingly required to understand, report on and reduce the level of carbon associated with their activities and supply chains.

As those requirements develop, they will increasingly flow through the supply chain to primary producers. That means that processors, retailers and financial institutions will have a strong interest in ensuring that Northern Ireland has a credible, consistent and practical system for measuring carbon at farm level and will therefore encourage strong interest across those partner sectors in seeing the carbon footprint project delivered successfully.

A consistent approach can help to avoid a situation whereby individual farmers are faced with different requests for carbon information, and the challenges that that would pose. There are real benefits associated with the project. The Department is putting funding towards it. We are seeking to put farmers in a strong position so that they can provide the information on scope 3 emissions that many organisations are asking for. The project will not be used as a tool to breach people's privacy or for herd reduction. It is about giving people the tools and information that they need so that they can support themselves in a competitive marketplace.

Mr Speaker: Thank you. That concludes questions to the Minister.

Mrs Erskine: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During questions to the Minister, it was said that misleading information came from these Benches in relation to a court judgement on the A5. These Benches only repeated what was said by a judge in a court of this land. I know that there are people in the Assembly who are disregarding the rule of law right now. I understand that people do not want to listen to what the courts have to say, but I ask the Speaker to remind people that the courts are a fundamental part of Northern Ireland and should be listened to.

Mr Speaker: That is not a point of order. As I said before, we do not fact-check what people say. It is up to Members to debate those issues and for the public to form an opinion.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): I beg to introduce the Pension Schemes Bill [NIA Bill 48/22-27], which is a Bill to make provision about pension schemes; and for connected purposes.

Mr Speaker: I call the Minister for the Economy, Caoimhe Archibald, to move the Consideration Stage of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: No amendments have been tabled. The Question on stand part will be put for each clause followed by the long title.

Mr Speaker: That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Petroleum Exploration and Licensing (Repeal) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

I ask Members to take their ease while we change the Chair.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call the Chairperson of the Committee for Education, Mr Nick Mathison, to move the Consideration Stage of the School Uniforms (Trousers) Bill.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: No amendments have been selected for debate. The Question on stand part will be put on each clause, followed by the Question on the long title.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That concludes the Consideration Stage of the School Uniforms (Trousers) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker. We will take our ease for a wee minute.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The next four items of business are motions from the Committee on Procedures regarding changes to Standing Orders relating to petitions of concern. There will be a single debate on all four motions. I will call the Deputy Chair of the Committee on Procedures to move the first motion. The debate on all four motions will then commence. At the end of the debate, I will put the Question on the first motion. The second motion is consequential to the first motion; therefore, if the first motion is not made, I will not ask the Deputy Chairperson to move the second motion or, indeed, any subsequent motions, as they are also consequential to the first motion. If the first motion is passed, I will put the Question on the second motion immediately. I will put the Question on the third motion only if the first motion is agreed and the Question on the fourth motion only if the third motion is agreed. Hopefully, that is clear. I will proceed.

Ms Flynn (The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures): I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who speak will have five minutes. Please open the debate on all four motions.

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

On behalf of the Committee on Procedures, I am pleased to bring to the Assembly motions to replace the current Standing Order 28 with a new version and to introduce new Standing Orders 28A, 36A and 40A. Each of those Standing Orders relates to the petition of concern. I will take the opportunity to present the views of the Committee before taking a few minutes at the end to express the views of Sinn Féin.

Section 42 of the NI Act 1998 provides the statutory basis for the petition of concern mechanism, and Standing Order 28 sets out the procedures for how it operates in Assembly proceedings. Over the past two years, the Committee on Procedures has been undertaking detailed consideration of possible amendments to our current Standing Orders to take account of the changes made to the petition of concern mechanism by section 42 of the NI Act 1998, following its amendment in 2022. The amendments that were made reflected a number of reforms that were set out in 'New Decade, New Approach' in 2020. Those changes to section 42 have resulted in a need to update our Standing Order 28. Section 42(6) also clearly states that Standing Orders must provide for certain matters. The Committee, therefore, had a duty to bring forward revisions to Standing Orders that would give effect to the amended section 42. The Committee began that work in November 2024 and considered a wide range of issues relating to the new provisions in section 42 and the required changes that would need to be made to Standing Orders.

Consideration was also given to some potential optional provisions, taking into account the relevant text of 'New Decade, New Approach'. In undertaking that work, the Committee was informed by briefings from Assembly officials on procedural matters pertaining to plenary business and Bills that are introduced to the Assembly. We also received detailed legal and drafting advice from the Assembly's Legal Services, and we sought and received guidance from the Speaker's Office on duties that would fall to that office. On behalf of the Committee, I put on record our appreciation to the Speaker for his prompt and useful responses to all of our queries and to all of the officials who provided us with expert advice on what were often very complicated issues. After frequent, lengthy deliberations and discussions, the Committee developed draft illustrative Standing Orders and consulted the political parties in the Assembly, the independent Member and the Speaker on those. On the basis of the comments and feedback received, the draft Standing Orders were refined, resulting in the four Standing Orders that are before the Assembly today. Details of the process that was followed by the Committee, the issues considered and all of the conclusions that we reached are set out in the Committee report.

The first motion being debated replaces current Standing Order 28, which no longer reflects the law now in place in relation to petitions of concern. It replaces it with a revised Standing Order. The replacement Standing Order applies the provisions of section 42 of the 1998 Act and largely reflects the proposals found in 'New Decade, New Approach'. Whilst certain paragraphs of section 42 are in law and apply already, regardless of whether they are covered in Standing Orders, the Committee decided that, for the purposes of clarity and to avoid Members and other interested parties having to refer to two documents — Standing Orders and the 1998 Act — it would include the provisions in the revised Standing Order 28: for example, the requirements that are already in place regarding the number of Members' signatures required for a petition of concern; the make-up of those Members; the consideration period for confirmation of a petition; when the vote will take place; and the prevention of the Speaker, Principal Deputy Speaker and Deputy Speakers from presenting or confirming a petition are all covered in the revised draft Standing Order.

On certain matters that may not be subject to a petition, which are covered by paragraph (6) of the revised Standing Order, the Committee noted that section 42 specified:

However, section 42 also:

Sorry, some of this is a mouthful. Anyone who sits on the Committee on Procedures has got used to it. I ask Members to stay with me.

That paragraph refers to motions and questions that:

The Committee spent considerable time seeking to understand what that phrase meant, how it would be applied and who would make the decisions on whether a petition complied with it. It was clear from the advice that was received that it would apply to most private Members' motions. While it was apparent that, on most occasions, it would be clear whether the motion or question to be put had express legal or procedural effect, there would be times when it was not so clear. The Assembly would, therefore, need a decision maker for that aspect, and that role would de facto fall to the Speaker's Office.

The Committee sought the views of the Speaker on those issues, and he responded to confirm that his office would undertake the role of decision maker. He also indicated that, while it would be impossible to produce a definitive list, he was able to provide examples of matters that would have legal or procedural effect and could, therefore, be subject to a petition of concern. The examples are set out in the Committee's report and include:

Following deliberation, the Committee made provision at paragraphs (6) and (7) of revised Standing Order 28 that a vote on a motion or question that has no express legal or procedural effect may not be the subject of a petition and that the Speaker will determine whether a motion or question has such effect.

I now draw the Assembly's attention to the deadlines for the presentation of a petition under normal and exceptional circumstances. They can be found at paragraphs (4) and (5) of revised Standing Order 28. Current Standing Order 28 provides a deadline and states:

It also allows for circumstances where no notice of the vote or similar is given. The Committee considered whether those were the most appropriate deadlines for the mechanisms that now apply to petitions of concern and explored other possibilities. The details of that are set out in the Committee 's report.

One of the key issues taken into account when deciding on changing the deadlines was the opinion provided about the time that the Speaker may need to decide whether a petition is valid in connection with a motion or a question with express legal or procedural effect. Paragraph (4) of revised Standing Order 28 provides that, in normal circumstances:

Paragraph 5 provides that:

Finally, on revised Standing Order 28, I will briefly cover paragraph (3), which concerns the provision of a statement to explain the grounds and rationale for tabling a petition. That is not a requirement of the 1998 Act, but it was covered in New Decade, New Approach. Some Committee members expressed concern about how useful such statements would be, and we, therefore, sought the views of the parties and the independent Members about including mandatory or optional provision for such a statement. Ultimately, the Committee decided to provide for the option of a statement to accompany the petition.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Órlaithí, you are past your 10 minutes.

Ms Flynn: I am out of time. Sorry. I was trying to speak as quickly as I could.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That is OK. There was obviously a lot to get through.

Mr Clarke: At the outset, I express my thanks and appreciation to the Committee staff for their work. As the Principal Deputy Speaker said, the Committee has been working on the issue for almost two years. Some of the very considered advice that officials gave us was very useful.

I will address the four different Standing Orders. The Committee was broadly content with Standing Order 28. I should, however, say at the outset that much has been said about the petition of concern over the years, and adjustments have already been made to it. We frequently hear that Members on the opposite Benches want to reform the petition of concern even further, so I am not sure whether we are moving into a period of having conversations about changing the petition of concern, but I am of the view that we will be giving up nothing else until all issues are on the table for discussion, one of which is addressing the lawlessness of Ministers in office. A lot therefore needs to be reformed, not just the petition of concern. For that reason, we will adopt the same position that we took in Committee —.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Clarke: No, I want to develop my points. You will get your chance in a minute. The Committee is broadly content with amended Standing Order 28, and we will support that motion today, but we will oppose the motions on proposed new Standing Orders 28A, 36A and 40A.

Mr Allen: I will be brief in outlining the Ulster Unionist Party's position on the proposed Standing Orders before us, although perhaps not as brief as my Committee colleague to my right was.

First, like other Members, I place on record my thanks to the Committee, its staff, the Speaker and Assembly officials more widely who have contributed to the work. I also acknowledge the contribution of my party colleague Robbie Butler MLA, who served on the Committee during much of its consideration of the matters.

We will support the amendment to Standing Order 28. It largely brings our Standing Orders into line with the legislative changes introduced in 2022 and broadly reflects the arrangements that have already been operating in practice for some time. We cannot, however, support proposed new Standing Order 28A, which deals with the 14-day consideration period and the potential referral of a matter to an Ad Hoc Committee. We recognise that the legislation requires Standing Orders to provide for the possibility of such a referral. Our concerns, however, are not with the practicalities of the proposal but with the lack of operational detail on how such a Committee would function in practice.

As the Committee's report records, we raised those concerns during our deliberations and made clear our preference that the practical arrangements should be scoped out before any such Standing Order be brought before the Assembly for approval. The report acknowledges a number of unresolved questions, including who would initiate the establishment of such a Committee, how that Committee would be constituted and how it could realistically take evidence, consider a matter and report in the limited time frame available. Indeed, the Committee recognises that further work is required in order to address those issues.

Although existing Standing Orders already make provision for the establishment of Ad Hoc Committees, the question remains of how the arrangements would operate effectively within the 14-day consideration period. There is also the question of what meaningful contributions such a Committee could make, particularly given that it would play no role in determining the validity of a petition of concern. It is one thing to make provision for something in Standing Orders, but there is little point in our doing so if we have not properly established how it will operate in practice. At least, that is my party's view. We therefore believe that such matters require further consideration before the Assembly be asked to approve proposed new Standing Order 28A in its current form.

We will support proposed new Standing Orders 36A and 40A. As the Committee's report makes clear, those Standing Orders are intended to address the potential for successive or multiple petitions of concern creating a chain of 14-day consideration periods, thus disrupting Assembly business and delaying the passage of legislation. Indeed, the Committee identified the possibility that such delays could ultimately result in legislation's running out of time towards the end of a mandate. In our view, the petition of concern was never intended to be used in that way.

Of course, we recognise that the proposals place additional restrictions on when a POC may be presented. Such restrictions should not be introduced lightly, given the importance of the mechanism as a cross-community safeguard. However, there is a distinction between the legitimate exercise of that safeguard and the potential for successive petitions to frustrate the legislative process through repeated delays. Proposed new Standing Orders 36A and 40A seek to address that concern by establishing clearer deadlines for presenting petitions at the relevant stages of a Bill while retaining provisions for exceptional circumstances and amendments that are moved without notice. Importantly, those proposals establish more clearly defined procedural arrangements, including the relevant deadlines and exceptions. That is a distinction from the unresolved operational questions that we have raised regarding proposed new Standing Order 28A.

On balance, we believe that the provisions provide a proportionate means by which to protect the legitimate use of the petition of concern while ensuring that the Assembly can conduct its business effectively. For those reasons, we will support the changes to Standing Order 28 and the introduction of new Standing Orders 36A and 40A, but will oppose the introduction of Standing Order 28A, as we feel that further work is required on it.

Ms Hunter: I thank the Chair, Deputy Chair, staff — the officials and Clerks — and other members of the Committee on Procedures for their work to bring forward the amendments.

The SDLP will support the proposed amendment to Standing Orders 28 and new Standing Orders 28A, 36A and 40A. We feel that what we are doing is simple: taking steps to ensure that a safeguard is built in to protect communities so that the petition of concern cannot be used as a party veto. The petition of concern was originally designed, in 1998, to protect minorities. It was meant to stop any one community being steamrolled on matters of real consequence, but, over time —.

Mr Sheehan: Will the Member give way?

Ms Hunter: Yes.

Mr Sheehan: It is interesting, on the day that is in it, that the petition of concern is being deployed. The petition of concern, which is a safeguard that is intended to protect minorities, has been turned into a weapon against children who are educated in a minority language. Do you agree that that is the wrong way in which to use the petition of concern?

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

Ms Hunter: Thank you.

I thank the Member for his intervention. I wholeheartedly back your Bill, Pat. I have to say — it is in my notes here — that I am absolutely disgusted that it would be vetoed through the petition of concern. Every child in the North of Ireland has a right to be educated as they, and their parents, wish. Your Bill genuinely takes a stride towards where Irish-medium education needs to be. I get on with Members from the DUP, but that is a disgusting use of the petition of concern. As you rightly say, Pat, it was created and established to protect minority communities. We have a small number of pupils in the North who want to be educated through the medium Irish. They deserve to be protected and to have their rights upheld.

Today, we have learned that, tomorrow, after all the work at Committee and that which you and your staff have put into your Bill, we could see it being vetoed. This is not about party politics; it is about what is right. I feel very strongly that it would be wrong for Members across the House to veto it. We still have a good 24 hours ahead of us. I am looking at Mr Burrows, and I am hopeful that that could change. Mr Burrows, maybe we could have a conversation outside with Members from across the House. My comments are genuine: I grew up here, and I want to see this place work. I want to see the petition of concern being used rightly, not wrongly.

When we look back at Northern Ireland's history, we see that only seven petitions of concern were filed between 1998 and 2003 but that — to put on record what I have here — between 2011 and 2016, 115 petitions of concern were tabled across 31 Bills and motions. DUP members signed 86 of them. In 2015 alone, there were 60, including a notable one around marriage equality, which was blocked a number of times despite having majority support in the Chamber. If we look at those numbers, which have gone from seven petitions of concern in five years to 115 in five years, we see that the petition of concern is not being used as a safeguard but being abused.

In January, my colleague Matthew O'Toole highlighted the absurd position whereby a petition of concern was allowed to be used on a non-binding motion on EU observer status. My party feels that the amendments to Standing Orders are the answer to moving things to a better place, and we welcome them. They may not go as far as they should, but they remove some of the more worrying elements and create guard rails to stop the petition of concern being used unnecessarily to prevent the will of the House.

While I understand that other Members will have their own perspectives and positions on the consideration period, the SDLP believes that the 14 days are important.

As I mentioned at the start of my speech and throughout, the petition of concern was originally created and established to give every community in Northern Ireland confidence. The abuse of it did the opposite. It has drained confidence in this institution, and it continues to do so. The Standing Orders today do some of the work to return the petition of concern to its original purpose. As the Opposition, we will watch closely where this goes next.

In my notes, I had comments on the Irish-medium Education (Workforce Plan) Bill, but I have already spoken on that today. The SDLP feels that this is a safeguard, and we wholeheartedly support it.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I now call the Chair of the Committee on Procedures, Kellie Armstrong, to conclude and make a winding-up speech on the debate.

Kellie, you have 10 minutes. Thank you.

Ms K Armstrong (The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures): Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. As Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures, I welcome the opportunity to conclude today's debate on the motions to replace current Standing Order 28 with a new version and introduce new Standing Orders 28A, 36A and 40A, all of which relate to petitions of concern. I begin by thanking all those who took part in the debate and, in particular, our Deputy Committee Chairperson, Órlaithí Flynn, for opening it.

The statutory basis for the petition of concern mechanism is provided by section 42 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Standing Order 28 sets out the procedures for how it operates in Assembly proceedings. The Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Act 2022 amended section 42 of the 1998 Act to make new provisions for petitions of concern to give effect to changes arising from the New Decade, New Approach agreement. Consequently, Standing Order 28 does not currently reflect section 42 as amended, and our Standing Orders need to be updated.

Section 42(6) of the Northern Ireland Act clearly states that Standing Orders must provide for certain matters in relation to petitions of concern. The Committee on Procedures therefore commenced work to review Standing Order 28 in November 2024 and considered each paragraph of section 42 in detail — painstaking detail — taking into account the legal and procedural advice that it received. The Committee discussions on a variety of issues, many of which were complex, were lengthy and detailed and aimed to find a consensus on amendments to Standing Order 28 to meet the requirements of section 42. Details are set out in the Committee report that has been published and sent to all Members.

The motions before the Assembly introduce a revised Standing Order to replace current Standing Order 28 and introduce new Standing Orders 28A, 36A and 40A. I welcome the support indicated by some Members and parties for the proposals and am disappointed that there is not universal support. During the lengthy Committee discussions, it was clear that some parties had issues with some of the proposals.

I would like to pick up briefly on the points raised by Members who contributed to the debate. It could be asked why the Committee on Procedures has proposed new Standing Order 28A if it was clear that the DUP and Ulster Unionist members did not support it in Committee? The Committee recognised that the provisions relating to an Ad Hoc Committee and reports on the petition to be provided to the Assembly did not have the full support of all Committee members. We have therefore brought them forward in separate Standing Order motions, rather than including them in a revised Standing Order 28, given that they may not achieve the necessary cross-community support. It should, however, be noted that those provisions are already in law, as per section 42(6) of the 1998 Act.

Mrs Dillon: I appreciate the Member taking an intervention. Is the Member able to share with us whether some rationale was given in the Committee for why members were not supporting the amendments, given that we had a one-minute speech about what it meant for "us", as in the DUP, not the people who live out there and rely on us to deliver for them in this place, particularly considering what was outlined in relation to the Bill on Irish-medium education staff?

Ms K Armstrong: As we have heard today, both the DUP and the Ulster Unionists did not agree with Standing Order 28A. I have some sympathy for them in that regard, because it was a piece of law that was put into the 1998 Act that included no detail. It included no detail on how a Committee was to be set up or what the reports might look like. In the Committee, we were trying to comply with the law and make our Standing Orders correct.

Just so that everybody notes, the provisions are already in law, as per section 42(6) of the 1998 Act, and are relevant whether or not new Standing Order 28A is agreed by the Assembly. Members will have to have the Act to hand when considering whether Standing Order 28A is to be considered.

Mr Allen: Will the Member give way?

Ms K Armstrong: I will.

Mr Allen: The Member across the way asked whether the detail of why parties did not support Standing Order 28A was put on the record during Committee deliberations. I confirm, as I did earlier, that we articulated why we did not support Standing Order 28A, and the Committee Chair also articulated that it lacked detail. We cannot support it at this juncture for that specific reason.

Ms K Armstrong: I was about to come to that point. I thank the Member for bringing that up. It is an important point that, when Westminster makes a change to the Northern Ireland Act 1998, it really should be something that is workable in the House. I therefore understand why others do not wish to take it forward. The reason why the Committee brought it forward was to allow people to have a vote on it in the House today.

I am a little disappointed with the DUP's position on new Standing Orders 36A and 40A, because, during Committee, we felt that we had got amendments on them. Those provisions are aimed at managing the potential effects of the petition of concern on the scheduling and managing of Bill stages now that the process incorporates a 14-day consideration period. Current Standing Order 28 is clearly out of date. It does not reflect the procedures that have applied to petitions of concern since the amendments were made to section 42 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. It seems that we have agreement in the House that Standing Order 28 will be amended. Also, section 42(6) clearly states that Standing Orders must provide for certain matters in relation to petitions of concern, and that is what the Committee is proposing. By bringing the Standing Orders to the Assembly, the Procedures Committee has fulfilled the statutory duty placed on it by section 42(6) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

The Committee has also developed specific procedures to manage petitions of concern in relation to Bills, recognising the effect that the petition of concern procedures that are now in place could have on scheduling and the time taken to complete the stages of a Bill, including the potential to cause a Bill to time out towards the end of a mandate.

Cross-community support is required from the Assembly for any changes to Standing Orders. Members' contributions suggest that that might not be achieved, other than for amended Standing Order 28. At this stage, it is worth reminding Members that new Standing Orders 28A, 36A and 40A are contingent on revised Standing Order 28 being agreed. If the new Standing Order 28 is rejected, the Question will not be put on the rest. If it is approved, there will be an opportunity to agree new Standing Order 28A. Whether or not that is agreed, new Standing Order 40A is contingent on new Standing Order 36A being approved. I highlight that, if revised Standing Order 28 and new Standing Order 28A are not passed, the mechanisms provided for by section 42 of the Northern Ireland Act, as amended by the Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Act 2022, will still apply. That is the requirement of the legislation, which takes precedence over any Standing Orders.

Before I speak briefly as an Alliance MLA, I thank the Deputy Chairperson and Committee Members for their constructive and diligent approach. I give massive thanks to our Clerks, who have spent a long time over the past two years helping us to go through an extraordinarily complex issue, and to the Assembly officials, who provided comprehensive procedural and legal advice. We could not have done it without them. I also acknowledge the helpful information and advice provided by the Speaker.

As Chair of the Committee on Procedures, I am fully aware that, given that I am an Alliance MLA, the cross-community vote excludes me. I find any veto to be an undemocratic abuse. Instead of the petition of concern being used to protect minorities, as it was brought in to do, it is being abused by parties that do not have the courage to use the democratic voting system in the House to allow for a clean vote in the Chamber. I will have no say on the change today. My vote does not count because it is a cross-community vote, and apparently I am not part of the community in Northern Ireland. Therefore, it will be up to others who designate as "nationalist" or "unionist" to take the decision. I only wish that the Secretary of State and others were listening to us saying that the time has come to get rid of that type of veto. It is objectionable and undemocratic.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Before we proceed to the Question, I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support.

Ms Flynn (The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures): I beg to move:

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support.

Ms Flynn (The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures): I beg to move:

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Before I put the Question, I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support.

Some Members: Aye.

Some Members: No.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three-minute rule and move straight to the Division.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The motion on new Standing Order 40A has already been debated. The motion is consequential to the motion to introduce new Standing Order 36A, which has not been made, so I will not call on the Deputy Chair of the Committee to move the motion.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you. That concludes this item of business. Members, please take your ease before we move to the next item.

Mr McGuigan: I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other contributors will have five minutes.

Mr McGuigan: When people hear the word "arthritis", many still picture an older person with aching joints, but the reality can be very different. Arthritis and other musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions can affect people of all ages, including children and young people, and can have a devastating impact on their quality of life. The issue that we are debating today affects hundreds of thousands of people who live here. Approximately 550,000 people across the North are living with a musculoskeletal condition, and behind that figure are people who are living with chronic pain, struggling with everyday activities, losing their independence and, in many cases, being forced out of their employment. Research conducted by Arthritis UK has found that 79% of those surveyed live in pain most or all of the time, while 67% say that arthritis has impacted on their ability to work and 76% report that waiting for treatment has harmed their mental health. These are very stark figures that clearly demonstrate why we must treat musculoskeletal conditions as a major public health priority.

We know that waiting lists remain completely unacceptable. More than 36,000 people are waiting for a first orthopaedic outpatient appointment, with over half waiting longer than a year. More than 11,000 people have been waiting for over a year to see a rheumatologist, while some patients who require hip or knee replacements have faced waits stretching to almost six years — even longer in some trust areas. That, surely, is unacceptable. I acknowledge the Executive's investment in tackling waiting lists and that improvements are beginning to emerge. Indeed, over the past year, my constituency office has seen some slight improvements for those who are seeking access to orthopaedic treatment. That progress is welcome and needs to be recognised.

We cannot allow improvements in headline waiting list figures to disguise the very real difficulties that patients continue to experience. I will give two examples from my constituency. One gentleman contacted my office after waiting four years for a double knee replacement. He attended his pre-operative assessment in March and was told that he could expect surgery within three months. When he heard nothing further, however, he contacted my office. We subsequently learned from the trust that his surgery was not now expected until February 2027. That means another lengthy delay and the likelihood of his having to repeat his pre-operative assessment. The real tragedy, however, is what those years of waiting have meant for that man's life. He has been unable to work, his mobility has deteriorated, his independence has been significantly eroded and he now requires help with basic everyday activities. That is the human cost of waiting lists. It is not simply a statistic or number on a spreadsheet. It is someone's livelihood, independence or the quality of their life.

In another case, a woman attended a consultant in one hospital and was to be referred to Musgrave Park Hospital for surgery. Six months later, she discovered that necessary correspondence had never been sent, meaning that she had not even been placed on the surgical waiting list. For her, that meant six months lost, not because of a shortage of surgeons or operating theatres but because of a failure in communication between two hospitals — again, completely unacceptable

Another issue that I encounter regularly is the length of time that people wait before they even get to see a consultant who can determine whether surgery is then required. Some patients spend years receiving steroid injections or other treatments that no longer provide meaningful relief while their condition continues to deteriorate. By the time that they eventually see a consultant, their mobility has worsened significantly, their pain has increased and their quality of life has severely diminished. We need, Minister, to examine the entire patient pathway, from initial referral and diagnosis through to treatment, surgery and rehabilitation. The earlier we intervene, the better the prospects of protecting people's mobility, independence and overall health.

We must recognise the enormous impact that chronic pain and lengthy waits have on people's mental health. Living with constant pain clearly affects far more than just the body. As I said, it can mean being unable to work, unable to enjoy family life, unable to participate in activities that once brought pleasure and becoming increasingly isolated. There is an economic cost as well. Forty-three per cent of people living with MSK conditions in the North are economically inactive. We cannot separate the challenge of improving people's health from the challenge of supporting people to remain in employment and participate fully in society. We should, therefore, be exploring every opportunity to ensure that patients can access the treatment that they need as quickly as possible. From my perspective, that includes greater all-island cooperation. Someone on a waiting list in Newry or Derry should not have to wait years longer for treatment than someone 10 miles down the road in Dundalk or Donegal. More all-island cooperation could and would produce better health outcomes for our population. We have seen the benefits from the cross-border healthcare directive, which has, in some cases, enabled people to access much-needed surgery, including constituents who contacted my office directly.

I acknowledge the important work of Arthritis UK and its report 'From Breaking Point to Recovery'. The report sets out practical recommendations, including the development of a dedicated strategic framework for musculoskeletal health, improving diagnosis and care pathways, integrating mental health support and strengthening communication with patients who are waiting for treatment. Those recommendations deserve serious consideration. In particular, I emphasise the need for better communication with patients. Nobody should be left waiting for months or years for an update, uncertain whether they are even on the waiting list or when they might receive treatment. We need a system that measures success by not simply how many people are removed from a waiting list but how effectively we restore people's health, mobility, independence and quality of life.

Minister, I urge you and your Department to engage seriously with the recommendations of that report, build on the improvements that we are beginning to see and ensure that musculoskeletal health receives the strategic attention that it deserves.

Mrs Dodds: I thank those who tabled the motion, and I express our support for it. This is a huge issue, and I do not think there is anyone in the Chamber who has not heard, weekly or biweekly, the stories of constituents who live with chronic pain, who have been on waiting lists for lengthy periods and who may have used savings to get one knee fixed and cannot get the other one done, which now poses a similar problem.

It is something that causes such hardship to the people whom we represent. It is not a high-profile issue like that of cancer waiting lists or heart conditions, but we should recognise the ongoing, daily grind of pain that people experience. They deserve to have that addressed.

I will probably express the same frustration as every other Member when I say that, when everybody says, "Diane, I can't get an appointment. I was promised an appointment. I am now three or four years down the line, and I still haven't got an appointment for my knee" or their hip or whatever it is, I know that I am powerless. It is very frustrating for those whom we represent. Of course, we write to the trust and describe the condition of the constituent, but the issue is extremely difficult to address on that individual basis.

Over 500,000 people in Northern Ireland are living with these conditions, and 19,000 of those people are young, a figure that includes babies — some are very young. Rather than quote the statistics that everyone else will quote, I will talk about the position of young people and their transition from children's services to adult services.

A few months ago, I sponsored an event at which young people talked about their experiences of transferring from children's services to adult services. One young woman comes to mind. I will not name her, obviously, but she was diagnosed when she was very young — about three — so she has lived with arthritis-related conditions all her life. She was accustomed to having the wrap-around care that children's services gave her. She is a young woman of significant talent — she is in the final year of a degree apprenticeship — and she has overcome huge difficulties in her life, but, she said, the hardest thing was being lost in adult services once she had transferred from children's services.

That is one thing that not only young people but their parents really dread: suddenly, the named individuals whom they have known for a lifetime and are all they know, whom they have seen regularly, are taken away, and they are simply lost in the adult services world. The young woman found it difficult to get appointments in the world of adult services and very much felt as though the rug had been pulled from beneath her. I know that I am labouring the point, Minister, but it would not take a lot of money to address the issue, and it could be addressed with a little thought and organisation and a little care for young people who are in that situation.

People talk about the impact of pain on mental health and the economic impact of people not being able to work or being able to work only part-time, so I acknowledge —

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

Mrs Dodds: — yes — the investment in the support scheme for living well while waiting. That is an important scheme, and we need to look at it.

Ms Nicholl: I will start by sharing the experience of a constituent who contacted me recently about a rheumatology appointment. He wrote to say that he had waited for 10 years for his first appointment with a consultant. I do not sit on the Health Committee, and I know that there are issues with waiting lists, but it seemed unbelievable that anyone would have to wait 10 years for their initial appointment with a consultant, so I wrote to the trust to check that. It confirmed that the current waiting time for a routine rheumatology appointment is 10·8 years. We hear that number, but when we contextualise it and think about what it means to someone who is living with arthritis or an inflammatory condition, we realise that it means 10 years of pain, uncertainty and potentially deteriorating health without having had even an initial consultation.

That is not good enough. It is not just a statistic but 10 years of someone's life. People should not have to wait for 10 years, and they certainly should not have to spend those years feeling as though they have been forgotten about. It raises an important question about what support is available to people while they wait. Are they being supported by being signposted to physiotherapy, pain management or even mental health support? Are they receiving regular updates or simply being left to navigate the situation alone? In its recent report, Arthritis UK highlighted the fact that patients frequently feel "abandoned" on waiting lists, with little communication or support received.

There is a significant economic consequence to delay. The Chair of the Committee talked about economic inactivity and the role that delay plays. Over half a million people in Northern Ireland live with arthritis and related conditions. Some 43% of people living with such conditions are economically inactive, with many having had to leave employment because of their condition or a lack of appropriate workplace support. I am on the Economy Committee, so I know that that is something on which we have to get a handle. We cannot ignore the connection between timely access to healthcare and people's ability to remain in work, maintain their financial independence — especially in the current financial climate — and participate fully in society.

I thank Arthritis UK for engaging with my office on the issue. It was a new case for us, and its engagement has been very helpful. We therefore urge the Minister to recognise the scale and urgency of the problem — I know that he will — take meaningful action to reduce waiting times and ensure that people are supported while they wait.

It will not surprise Members to hear that, as an Alliance MLA, I will link the issue to the wider issue of transformation. We cannot sit back and watch as our health service continues to fall apart, patients come to harm and staff are driven out of vocations that they love. My party leader made a direct call to other party leaders to work together to agree a cross-party compact on health and social care transformation, because the matter transcends party politics. It is one of the most pressing issues that we face, so we have to be brave and bold in taking decisions, because it is literally about people's lives. Do we have details on the number of excess deaths that have occurred as a result of our not having had health transformation? We have a responsibility to our constituents to remove politics from the debate and take forward health reform on a collective, cross-party basis. We have to take a cross-party approach to transformation.

Reform needs to happen now. Otherwise, there will not be anything left for us to fix. Reform requires parties working together. My constituent and every other constituent who is waiting and wondering whether this is what the situation is going to be like for them for the next 10 years need to know that the people whom they elected — the people in here — will do something about it.

Mr Chambers: I welcome the motion, because arthritis and musculoskeletal conditions affect a very significant number of people, yet their impact is often underestimated. It is not simply about aches and pains. For someone who is living with persistent pain or reduced mobility, ordinary tasks such as getting dressed, walking to the shops, caring for family or staying in work can become difficult.

As has been said, Arthritis UK's report 'From Breaking Point to Recovery' estimates that around 550,000 people in Northern Ireland live with arthritis or another MSK condition. That is close to one in three people here. The report's message is clear: too many people are waiting for too long, with the pain often affecting their independence, mental well-being and ability to work. The motion is right to focus on access to orthopaedic and rheumatology services. Long waits are not just an administrative problem. For inflammatory arthritis, early diagnosis and treatment can make a real difference to a person's long-term health and function. A patient should not have to wait until their condition has deteriorated before receiving appropriate care. At the same time, not all MSK conditions are the same. People therefore need a pathway that fits their condition, not a one-size-fits-all response.

It is also right to recognise the progress that the Department and the health service have made on tackling some of our longest waits. Last year alone, more than 385,000 additional assessments, diagnostic tests and treatments were delivered. The number of patients projected to wait more than four years for inpatient or day case care fell by 67%, while long waits for primary hip and knee procedures were reduced by 99%. That is significant progress and reflects the hard work of staff across our hospitals, community services and primary care. It shows that focused effort can make a difference to the people who have waited for far too long. However, that progress also illustrates what is at risk if this place keeps dabbling with the death spiral of political instability that it seems unable to get beyond.

People need clear pathways from their first conversation with a GP, through to specialist care and on to rehabilitation and support in the community. They should know what will happen next, who to contact if their condition gets worse and how to manage while they wait. Services need to work together around the person, rather than patients and families being left to join the dots themselves.

It is also an economic issue. Multiple reports highlight the fact that people with MSK conditions are less likely to be in work. MSK conditions account for over 20 million lost working days across the UK each year. Beyond that figure, there are people who are forced to cut their hours, leave a job that they value or give up work altogether. Earlier treatment, rehabilitation and reasonable adjustments at work can help people retain their independence and stay in employment. Organisations such as Arthritis UK understand the realities that patients face and can provide support that complements clinical care. That support is valuable, but it must never become a substitute for timely diagnosis and treatment.

Whilst I commend the progress to date, there is much left to do. I support the motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed, Alan. Ladies and gentlemen, as Question Time will begin at 2.45 pm, I suggest that the Assembly takes its ease until then. The debate will continue after Question Time, when the next Member to speak will be Colin McGrath.

Mr Speaker: Peter McReynolds has withdrawn his question.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): Pay awards for healthcare workers are a matter for the Health Minister, but I recognise that the Executive as a whole have a collective responsibility to make sure that public-sector workers receive the pay awards to which they are entitled. It remains my priority to secure an appropriate mechanism to enable the delivery of public-sector pay awards and to make sure that happens as soon as possible. I am exploring every avenue available to me to enable that to happen, and I continue to press the Secretary of State at every opportunity to secure a fair funding settlement for the Executive. It is not acceptable that we continue to be underfunded in comparison with other jurisdictions.

I will continue to prioritise funding for health and social care services. That is why the draft Budget proposals that I brought forward included £495 million in funding over three years, ring-fenced for reducing health waiting lists and improving elective care capacity. It is clear that the additional investment in our health service, including through the transformation fund, is having a significant impact where it matters most in ensuring that people receive the healthcare that they need and reducing prolonged delay.

Mr McGrath: For thousands of public-sector workers, it will be cold comfort that they will not get their pay rise or back pay this side of Christmas. Are you really telling those workers that there is absolutely nothing that you can do to help them get the money that they are owed, or is it the case that they will not get their pay rises?

Mr O'Dowd: At no stage have I said that there is absolutely nothing that I can do or nothing that the Executive can do. First and foremost, we have been pressing the British Government for a proper and fair sustainable funding package for this place to assist us in funding pay awards for health workers and other public-sector workers. That is only right and proper. I am exploring all options open to me. First and foremost, it is the responsibility of the Health Minister, but, as I said in my initial answer, there is a responsibility on the Executive to support all Ministers collectively around the table to ensure that public-sector workers receive their pay uplift, and I will continue to play my part in that.

Mr McGuigan: Minister, I thank you for the work that you are doing. I wish you well in your endeavours to ensure that our public-sector workers get their pay rise. You detailed some of the engagement that you are having with the British Secretary of State. Further to that, what is the current position on agreeing a Budget?

Mr O'Dowd: We had further discussions with the Government on Thursday past. However, final agreement has not yet been reached. We continue to press them to ensure that we are properly funded. That, in turn, will allow us to pay our public-sector workers the pay awards that they deserve.

Ms Forsythe: The entire Executive are committed to supporting public-sector workers and to doing their best to deliver on the pay awards, but, as was made clear by your officials last month, I think, the award cannot be processed before Christmas in this calendar year. Can you clarify that, when it is agreed, it will be fully applied with arrears? When an agreement is reached, how quickly can it be put through the payroll to give some ease of mind to those civil servants?

Mr O'Dowd: I can confirm that any pay award will be backdated to 1 April, which is the start of the financial year. I will work alongside my Executive colleagues to ensure that, when we reach agreement, the pay awards are delivered as quickly as possible.

Mr Nesbitt: I do not envy the Finance Minister's position, but does he agree that pay parity is a commitment in 'New Decade, New Approach'? That document was penned by a previous Secretary of State, and therefore the current Government should look on pay parity as an inescapable pressure.

Mr O'Dowd: Without doubt. Many pressures that the Executive face are a direct result of commitments that the British Government have made. All political parties are in favour of pay parity — it is only right and proper — but the financial responsibility for that has to be met by the British Government.

Mr O'Dowd: With the Speaker's permission, I will answer questions 3 and 9 together.

Members will be aware that there has been extensive engagement with the British Government over recent months, including with the Secretary of State and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. There has been ongoing engagement with the Secretary of State during October. The autumn Budget provided only an additional £131·2 million in day-to-day funding for this year. The announcement also resulted in a reduction of £117 million capital departmental expenditure limit (DEL) over the four-year period from 2026-27 to 2029-2030. Westminster's decision to reduce our capital funding by £117 million is a major blow at a time when additional investment in areas such as critical infrastructure and social housing is urgently required.

Last week, the Executive met to discuss the Budget position following the autumn Budget. Discussions are continuing following further political discussions with the Secretary of State last Thursday. I have been clear that I believe that the Executive must work together to agree a Budget to enable delivery of pay awards to our vital public-sector workers.

Mr McAleer: I thank the Minister for his response. Following the autumn Budget, is there still a funding gap here compared with the situation in Scotland and Wales?

Mr O'Dowd: There is a significant funding gap between how we are funded and how Scotland and Wales are funded. My officials are working on the implications and outworkings of the autumn Budget. Initial reports on that suggest that the gap is widening, not narrowing. If that proves to be correct, that is a further indictment of the Government and how they treat the people and society of this place.

There is a significant funding gap. The amount of money that the Executive now require from the Government to maintain and sustain our public services, pay our public-sector workers and grow our economy is insignificant when you compare it with the global amounts available to the British Government. We are talking about a sovereign Government and hundreds of millions of pounds, but they continually underfund this place both against our level of need and in comparison with other jurisdictions.

Mr Speaker: Mr Delargy is not in his place.

Mr Kingston: I think that the Minister will agree that it is widely recognised that Northern Ireland's waste water infrastructure has suffered from underinvestment over many decades, including under direct rule, to the point where it now prevents development in many parts of Belfast and Northern Ireland. Has it been flagged up in talks with the Government at Westminster that there is a critical need and a strong case for extra government funding to address the underinvestment in our waste water infrastructure over those many decades?

Mr O'Dowd: The waste water infrastructure and the need for that investment to proceed have certainly been raised with them on every occasion when I have been in the room. You will note that, in my original answer, I said that we were losing £117 million of capital over the next four years: that will have a significant impact on capital projects. The Executive will have to decide how they manage that loss. If that funding is absent, it will certainly not go to waste water infrastructure.

Dr Aiken: If I may, I will make a declaration of interest, having spent five hours of my life that I will not get back stuck at Hillsborough Castle last Thursday. I think that most of us who were there would say the same.

One of the issues that have been raised is the conditionality that is being raised by the Secretary of State on section 4, which would mean that we would have to have a balanced Budget. There is no way that we can achieve a balanced Budget within the timescales that are available, however. Can the Minister update the Assembly on any discussions that he is having on the legal issues, so that we can get beyond that?

Mr O'Dowd: While a lot of the focus and attention has rightly been on the quantum of funding that has been offered by the Government, there have also been discussions on the terms and conditions that have been laid down by the Government. Without going into detail on those discussions, I have been pressing home to the Secretary of State the need to allow the Executive continued access to Treasury reserves and to ensure that there is flexibility in that regard. The terms and conditions that he has set down are yet another impediment to progress. Scotland and Wales do not face those conditions, yet they are funded over and above their level of need. The Secretary of State has arrived with another set of hoops through which he expects the Executive to jump.

Mr O'Dowd: Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will answer questions 4, 5 and 8 together.

The local growth fund will provide £43 million a year in 2026-27, 2027-28 and 2028-29. For the 2026-27 year, resource funding is being delivered by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. That approach was necessary due to late decisions taken by Whitehall and to avoid a financial cliff edge for the voluntary and community sector. In addition, departmental allocations of £27·4 million for capital funding in 2026-27 were agreed by the Executive and notified to the Assembly on 8 July 2026.

On 21 October, I issued a written ministerial statement updating Members on progress with the local growth fund and Executive decisions on funding arrangements for the next two years. The Executive have now agreed resource funding for 2027-28 and 2028-29, providing a clear framework for delivery. That includes £19·52 million to the Department for Communities to deliver an economic inclusion programme and £3·79 million to the Department for the Economy for the continued delivery of business support initiatives, including the Go Succeed programme. Work is also under way to determine departmental capital allocations for 2027-28 and 2028-29 through an evidence-based assessment process that should conclude before the end of this year.

Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for his answer. Given the importance of community and voluntary organisations, local businesses and, indeed, councils in delivering economic growth, will the Minister ensure that they will also have a meaningful opportunity to influence how the funding is spent and that constituencies such as mine, North Down, are not overlooked when future capital allocations are decided?

Mr O'Dowd: I cannot guarantee payments to North Down any more than I can guarantee payments to Upper Bann at this stage. However, it is important that we engage with all the organisations that the Member referenced to ensure that we have a full understanding of the needs and that we use the local growth fund as strategically as possible to create the change that it has the potential to create. Obviously, there is huge disappointment at how the local growth fund was brought about, the failings and the lack of funding in it, but we are where we are, and we have to use it as appropriately as possible and ensure that, where possible, it creates across all constituencies the change that we all desire.

Miss Hargey: Thanks very much, Minister. The aim of the local growth fund is to regenerate communities and improve connectivity: have the other Departments fed back how they aim to do that with the funding?

Mr O'Dowd: Yes, there has been engagement across the Executive and through the working group on how the Departments will use the funding that they have already been allocated and how we plan to move forward with future funding programmes in that regard. The Member will be aware that the Executive have agreed to capital allocations of £27·4 million, £3·8 million of which will go to Agriculture for contributing to sustainable economic growth. Communities has been allocated £7·8 million to improve community infrastructure and regenerate areas. Economy has been allocated £13·29 million to support investment and innovation, and Infrastructure has £3·24 million for investment in transport and connectivity. All of those allocations will make a huge difference to our economy and society and help to build sustainable and productive sectors as we move forward.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. One of the sub-themes of the local growth fund was economic inclusion. When it comes to capital versus project funding, the loss of so much funding is a real concern, as you mentioned. What engagement have you and your Department had with the Minister and Department for Communities, given that economic inclusion is their responsibility?

Mr O'Dowd: The bid for economic inclusion came about as a result of engagement with my Department and across the Executive table, including with the Department for Communities. I have said from the outset that I want to see Departments working with the community and voluntary sector in the implementation of the programmes that they have brought forward. Each Department will have to make decisions to ensure that they deliver on the objectives of the programme and do so in an effective, cost-efficient manner. I have urged them to ensure that they engage with the community and voluntary sector on any programmes or potential programmes that they may have.

Mr Durkan: The Minister previously raised issues to do with the distribution of capital funding versus resource funding that was set by the British Government. What conversations has he had with the Government about the devolution of that fund?

Mr O'Dowd: The Member may be aware that I am on record as saying that it is one of the most frustrating programmes on which I have ever had to deal with the British Government. There have been huge failings from the outset of the programme by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government at Whitehall. There was a commitment in the Labour Party manifesto that it would be devolved to local institutions. It has failed to do that. We have been playing catch-up ever since, and I continue to impress on the Government the fact that the Executive are best placed to deliver local programmes in this society. Despite our many failings and difficulties, we are best placed to know the needs of our local society and communities, rather than a Whitehall Department in London.

Mr O'Dowd: At 4 October 2026, £1·433 billion in rates had been collected, representing strong progress in-year. The majority of outstanding debt is either subject to agreed payment arrangements or actively progressing through the recovery process. Land and Property Services (LPS) makes strenuous efforts to recover all outstanding debt. Since 1 April 2026, Land and Property Services has reduced unpaid rates that were carried into the 2026-27 rating year by almost £50 million to £131 million. LPS is committed to supporting ratepayers who may be experiencing financial difficulties. Anyone who is struggling to pay their rates is encouraged to contact LPS at the earliest opportunity to discuss their circumstances. Where appropriate, payment arrangements can be agreed to help customers to manage their liability and avoid recovery action.

Land and Property Services has robust processes and procedures in place to minimise rating debt, including taking legal action to recover unpaid rates in cases of persistent non-payment. Rate arrears may be written off for a variety of reasons, such as when a company has been dissolved or entered administrative receivership. Debts are considered for write-off only where they are deemed to be irrecoverable and after all appropriate recovery action that is available to LPS has been fully pursued and exhausted. The total amount of unpaid rates that were written off in the 2025-26 rating year was £27·3 million, with 75% of that total being written off for legal reasons. The increase in rate debt that was written off in 2025-26 was primarily attributable to a significant rise in insolvency-related write-offs, including bankruptcies, liquidations, administrations and voluntary arrangements. In such cases, LPS is legally required to cease recovery action and write off debts that have become irrecoverable. The increase therefore reflects a growth in insolvency cases rather than any reduction in recovery activity. LPS continues to pursue outstanding debt wherever possible and writes off debts only where recovery is no longer legally or practically achievable.

Mr K Buchanan: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, rates are the main income or revenue that we can bring in from the people of Northern Ireland. When do you see it being the case that rates will be paid by the majority of people or all people who are entitled to pay rates on rateable properties? We heard lots of figures there, which is fair enough; we need to analyse them. When will we see rates being paid by the majority of people? We are talking about going to Westminster for additional money, which is right, but what will we do to get in all that we are entitled to?

Mr O'Dowd: In fairness, the majority of people pay their rates or make every effort that they can to pay their rates debt. As I have said previously in the House, rates debt broadly falls into two categories: those who cannot pay for a variety of reasons — for instance, a business might face pressures or not be operating as well as hoped — and those who will not pay. There are people who actively avoid paying their fair share of contributions through the rates system, which goes on to fund public services. LPS pursues both categories through a strategy that is about recovering as much money as possible and pursuing people through the courts if necessary. As I set out in those figures, it does that in certain cases, but, inevitably, there will always be circumstances, such as insolvency or bankruptcy, in which moneys cannot be recovered.

Mr O'Dowd: A dedicated team is being established to take forward policy development. The recruitment process for the team has completed, and pre-appointment formalities are being finalised. Once the team is in post, it will begin detailed development of the policy work. The policy development work will include engagement with stakeholders and other interested parties. That engagement is a vital part of the policy development, because it will help inform the reforming legislation. Given the limited time remaining in the mandate, the team's work during the period will lay the foundations for reform. The Department intends to continue policy development and legislative preparation into the next mandate.

Mr Honeyford: I thank the Minister for his response. Reform of shred property management is a major issue for constituents of mine who are with companies that are raising the fees that they charge. It is also important for weeding out those companies that are failing, because there are some good companies that do property management well.

Minister, you have confirmed that recruitment has happened. Will you confirm whether the call for evidence and the public consultation will go out this side of the election?

Mr O'Dowd: I hope so, but I cannot confirm that. Recruitment has taken longer than I perhaps wanted, but that came down a number of factors. My Department faces financial pressures and pressure on staffing levels, while the team required for the work is specialised. I have no doubt, however, that the team, once in place, will pursue reform as quickly as possible. We have to do that, because it is a hugely complex area. I will endeavour to do my best to have the work started before the end of the mandate, but I cannot guarantee it.

Mr McNulty: Minister, many will be disappointed to hear that we will not see reform of shared property management before the end of the mandate. How soon will it be introduced in the next mandate?

Mr O'Dowd: Once we start the work, reform can start more quickly in the next mandate. That will be a decision for the next Minister of Finance, but I have no reason to think that any future Minister will not continue the work. Why would they not? As far as I can see, its broad principles have cross-party support, and the issue affects most, if not all, of our constituencies. As I said to Mr Honeyford, however, it is a hugely complex area of land and property law that will require careful and skilled navigation to get us to a point at which we can reform the legislation and make it workable.

Mr O'Dowd: My Department has made progress on modernising Civil Service recruitment through increased use of digital systems, streamlined vacancy management and work with Departments to reduce delays. NICS HR provides recruitment advice to the nine Departments. Its successful pilot for administrative officer (AO) vacancies in the north-west reduced time to hire from around 18 months to approximately 12 weeks, with 155 candidates in post within 12 weeks of launch and a merit list produced for future supply. The model has since supported AO competitions for Belfast, for accountancy and for road workers, with continued success. Key performance indicators have also launched for the model, with 100% compliance against all key metrics. Building on those successes, future plans include further development and standardisation of competition practices, additional KPIs and enhanced reporting to align recruitment with broader departmental and Civil Service priorities and to build the capacity needed to deliver them.

Mr Kearney: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht an fhreagra sin.

Minister, I have received representations from across the Civil Service relating to its appointment and promotion processes. I intend to return to the matter and engage with you and your Department on it in the near future, but, in the meantime, will you set out the arrangements that are currently in place that govern temporary promotions in the Civil Service?

Mr O'Dowd: Yes, and I am more than happy to engage further with you on the matter, which has been the topic of a lot of correspondence from a variety of MLAs.

The Department is tied to employment legislation. Temporary promotions give the Civil Service flexibility to maintain essential services. They are designed primarily to meet business needs for various reasons, such as covering short-term or long-term staff absences or filling temporary positions. They may also be used to temporarily fill a substantive vacant post until that position becomes permanently filled.

Under the career opportunities and promotions policy, Departments should regularly review temporary promotions to confirm the continuing business need for such arrangements. Departments receive detailed monthly temporary promotion data on grade and duration to improve oversight. A new employee mobility policy is being developed and will include strengthening governance arrangements in relation to the use and duration of temporary promotions. Therefore, the Department is supporting and, as best we can, holding to account Departments on their use of temporary promotions. When it comes to how temporary promotions impact on future career pathways, we are covered, and quite rightly so, by strict employment legislation.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, there are more than 20,000 civil servants in the North for whom you are the ministerial lead. We heard at the Finance Committee recently that it is now too late to ensure that those civil servants will have a pay rise in time for Christmas, even though oil prices are making life very difficult. That is probably also the case for hundreds of thousands of other public servants, classroom assistants, nurses, teachers and the rest. Given that they cannot get a pay rise in the absence of an Executive Budget, do you and your Executive colleagues owe them an apology?

Mr O'Dowd: I have a plan and a strategy to deliver civil servants' pay rises and a plan and a strategy to deliver public-sector workers' pay rises. You do not.

Mr O'Dowd: The A5 is one of the largest road infrastructure projects in the North. I welcome the recent Court of Appeal judgement, which will allow the progression of the A5 project. That project is critical for road safety, regional balance and economic connectivity across the North. The Executive have previously committed to the A5 western transport corridor scheme as an Executive flagship project. The Irish Government have also committed €600 million towards the scheme. As it is an Executive flagship project, any funding required over and above the Irish Government contribution will be earmarked in the Executive Budget. My officials have recently undertaken an information-gathering exercise from Departments to inform the Budget. That enables Departments to provide updated funding arrangements for Executive flagship projects, including the A5, which can be reflected in a future agreed Budget. As it is an Executive flagship project, the Executive remain committed to completion of the A5 scheme.

Mr Gildernew: I thank the Minister for that information. I also note the court judgement's reflection on the robustness of your work on the A5 western transport corridor during your time as Minister for Infrastructure. Minister, may I ask for an update on funding for the A4 Enniskillen southern bypass?

Mr O'Dowd: Yes. Now that the A5 judgement has been made and has come out in favour of those who support and work for the scheme, it clarifies the finances for me. I will not speak on behalf of the Infrastructure Minister, but she has set out her position on those matters as well. The judgement certainly gives clarity on the way forward, so programmes such as the A4 Enniskillen bypass now have a green light to move ahead. I will continue to work with the Infrastructure Minister and the rest of the Executive to deliver those projects, because they are vital to economic regeneration, road safety and correcting regional imbalance.

Mr O'Dowd: Reducing unnecessary costs and ensuring that public resources are used as effectively as possible is a priority for the Executive, particularly given the significant pressures on public finances. It is the responsibility of all Ministers to focus on reducing the cost of public services and ensuring that the funding available delivers the greatest possible benefit for citizens. Ultimately, one of the most effective ways to reduce the costs associated with division is to reduce division itself and build a shared society underpinned by rights and equality.

Mr Dickson: Minister, have you given any consideration to the introduction of shared future-proofing as part of your budget-setting process?

Mr O'Dowd: I have not given any consideration to that, but we have strong equality legislation and other human rights legislation that Departments have to take into account when they are considering how they spend their budgets.

Any proposals that I bring to the Executive will be built on the draft Budget that was published earlier this year and went through a full consultation process. The consultation responses have been analysed and will be reflected in any future decisions that I and my Executive colleagues make on a Budget.

Mr Speaker: We now move to topical questions.

Mr O'Dowd: Much as I enjoy toing and froing with the leader of the Opposition, on this occasion, the subject is much too serious and too much depends on it for us to go back and forth, headbutting each other. We have to secure a fair and sustainable funding package from the British Government. That is my ongoing work and that of the Executive. To date, we have secured an additional £1·5 billion as a result of those engagements, throughout which the Member opposite has been telling me to set a Budget. Had we taken his advice, we would probably be £1·5 billion short at this stage. We did not take his advice, and we continue to engage with the Government. I think that we are now reaching the closing stages of those engagements. As I have said publicly and privately, my priority throughout the process has been the pay uplift for public-sector workers. That is what we are working towards. Whatever proposals come from the Executive and from those engagements and discussions must include a public-sector pay uplift for teachers, health workers and everyone else who falls into that category.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate that answer from the Minister. As he will appreciate, my job is to hold him to account, and I make no apology for that. I ask him to take responsibility for the hundreds of thousands of workers who deserve that pay rise.

I draw his attention to something else. This is why taking responsibility really matters to me and to him. Polls say that we are now closer than ever to Irish unity. It matters that we are taken seriously when it comes to governing this place. I do not think that persuadable people in the North or, indeed, voters in the South want this place to be a basket case. Does he agree that setting a Budget is not just about the here and now but about proving that we can govern this place and build a vision for a new Ireland? Does he agree that simply allowing this place to collapse through irresponsibility is not the best way to deliver Irish unity, which he and I both want to see?

Mr O'Dowd: I agree: we are closer to Irish unity than we have ever been. Given that Fine Gael has declared itself to be the party of Irish unification, anyone with the slightest understanding of Irish history will understand the momentous movement that has taken place.

I assure the Member that I do not want this place to be a basket case. I do not want to collapse the institutions. I want to rebuild an Ireland through partnership in this place and elsewhere. That is why I am a firm and avid supporter of the Good Friday Agreement.

The Member and I agree on one thing: we have to set a Budget. We disagree on how that Budget should be set. There is still engagement to be had with the British Government. Do not let them off the hook. There are still actions that they could take in the negotiations that we are having with them that would allow the Executive to deliver a fair and sustainable Budget and create the momentum for public-sector pay awards, which would help to stabilise our public services. There will still be huge financial challenges, because this place is underfunded. In my opinion, it cannot thrive economically as it would in a unified Ireland or deliver the quality-of-life outcomes that could be achieved in a unified Ireland. However, for as long as this state exists, I have a responsibility to do the best for the people who live in it, and I will continue to do that.

Mr O'Dowd: I intend to make a more detailed statement to the Assembly tomorrow on that matter, which is referred to as "Jade's law" in Britain and "Valerie's law" in the Twenty-six Counties. I have been looking closely at Jade's law in particular. It was an amendment to broader legislation going through Westminster with the good intent of withdrawing parental responsibility from a partner convicted of such a murder. Although "partner" is a regularly used term, it just does not fit in this conversation: partners in the true sense of the word do not kill their partners. Further action should be taken. At the moment, a bereaved family has to take legal action to have the parental responsibilities of the convicted killer removed. That needs to be reversed. I am also looking at whether parental responsibilities should be withdrawn in the case of serious sexual offences.

Miss Hargey: Thanks very much, Minister. Many families will be anticipating that statement tomorrow. Will you consider making the law apply to a broader range of offences, such as sexual offences?

Mr O'Dowd: Yes, I will. This conversation has been more focused over the past number of months, and, in April of this year, I made known my intention to move towards that. Engagement that I have had with families and even commentary in the media suggest that there is a need to examine a broader range of offences in this regard, and serious sexual offences would be included in that.

Mr O'Dowd: That is an important topic, given the discussion of budgets and the need for every penny to be used wisely. The simplification of the procurement process that I have introduced for spends below £50,000 or £65,000 for utilities will, in practice, allow Departments and the wider public sector, including schools, to make more spending decisions locally. That flexibility will ensure that there is more local accountability and allow spending decisions to be made locally. Public bodies can seek price checks or quotations for that spend by email. The simplification also means that businesses will not be required to use the eTendersNI system, which is seen by some groups as a barrier. It is also seen as a barrier by many small local companies and contractors, particularly for schools. It is often said that a school could get a local contractor to do a job for much less than when they have to go through the whole process. I have opened that up and allowed that process to take place. I am not sure whether that information has filtered down as much as it should have, but I emphasise that tendering for smaller contracts is much easier than it used to be and significant savings can be made by using it.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I welcome that. I do not think that that information has percolated down to schools in particular, which is what you used as an example. Over a period of years, many MLAs have raised the issue of the amount of public funds that are being used unwisely because of procurement processes. You might want to follow up in writing, Minister, but how can the process be simplified for small businesses in particular? The Minister mentioned schools: schools are run almost like small businesses according to the current procurement rules. What about simplifying it for small local businesses?

Mr O'Dowd: I will write to the Minister of Education again to make sure that the information has been shared. Many of us sit on schools' boards of governors, and that information should be filtered through there as well. The barriers that once existed to schools hiring a local contractor to do jobs have been removed. I will speak to the Economy Minister to see whether that information can be further shared with contractors — I have used schools as an example, but there are many other public-sector bodies that can use the information — to ensure that they are also aware of this and can make their information known to local public-sector facilities as well.

Mr O'Dowd: My officials have engaged with their counterparts in England to see how that system will work. I will look at it to see whether there is a practical way of delivering the same objectives here and to fully understand the objectives of what is taking place in England. We do not usually use the rates policy as a way to drive forward broader health policies or other policies, but I am not averse to that.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for that answer. As part of the conclusion of the strategic rating policy road map, will you look at any of the other changes to rates relief that were announced in the 2026 Budget package in England to see whether comparable changes could be made here?

Mr O'Dowd: As part of the draft Budget that I published in January, I set aside £10 million to support small and medium-sized enterprises, because I believe that, first, they are the backbone of our local economy and, secondly, they face significant pressures at this time. In any proposals that I bring to the Executive for a multiyear Budget, I am looking at extending the support package over a number of years rather than it being for a single year.

Mr O'Dowd: In my statement tomorrow, I will set out greater detail on that very sensitive but important issue. In recent days, we have seen convictions for the most horrific and horrendous of crimes against women and their children. Those convicted of such horrendous crimes should not continue to enjoy parental rights. As a father, I just cannot fathom it. I have to go through the process of consultation and engagement, and that will include, among others, the bereaved families whom you referenced.

Mrs Middleton: Minister, thank you for your answer. I agree with your points. Can you outline any specific legislative vehicle that could ensure that that is put in place in this mandate and no family is left waiting?

Mr O'Dowd: When this was first brought to my attention in April, I wanted to move legislation through quite quickly. However, after engagement with my officials and looking at the matter much more closely, I saw that Jade's law in England, which has really good intentions, was brought through Westminster quite quickly and was attached to other legislation. While it remains on the statute book, it is not being implemented. Those who murder a person with whom they are in a relationship and leave children behind are still, two years after Jade's law was introduced, allowed to make parental decisions: I do not want that. I want us to introduce legislation that can be put on the statute book and implemented. The work will start now, and decisions will be made in the next mandate.

Mr O'Dowd: I have no figures in front of me. I am not sure exactly how much work there is. It is an interesting point, and I will follow it up.

Mr Burrows: Will the Minister commit to writing to me on how much the cost is? I am told that significant costs are incurred by Northern Ireland Departments. Of course, we are part of one UK, which I support, but Departments here are doing work for Departments in the UK, and, if there is a case to be made, we should make it so that we can get that money back into Northern Ireland to fund public services.

Mr O'Dowd: That might be an argument for separation from the UK, but we will not go down that route on this occasion. [Laughter.]

I will follow that up in writing with the Member.

Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister of Finance. I invite Members to take their ease until we resume the debate on the previous item of business.

Mr McGrath: Ten years — a decade — as has been mentioned, is not a waiting list: it is a life sentence of pain. We have reached the extraordinary and shameful position where waiting times in the Belfast Trust area have gone beyond 10 years for a first appointment with a rheumatologist. That is not 10 years for treatment or for surgery; it is 10 years just to get through the door to see the specialist. We need to understand what that actually means. Arthritis is not a condition that politely waits until the health service is ready. It progresses, joints deteriorate, mobility disappears and independence is lost. Damage that could have been prevented becomes damage that cannot be reversed.

Imagine being told that you would have to wait 10 years to see a specialist. That means 10 years of waking up in pain; 10 years of struggling to get dressed to go to work or to lift your grandchildren; and 10 years of watching your world get smaller. Imagine, then, being the nurse, the doctor or the healthcare worker who knows someone who needs help but simply does not have the resources to give them that help. That is the cruelty behind the waiting lists. Patients are being failed while staff are being left to carry the consequences, and neither deserves that or should have to accept it.

Arthritis UK tells us that 550,000 people here live with arthritis or a related musculoskeletal condition. Some 79% of those surveyed by Arthritis UK reported living in pain "most or all" the time, while 76% reported that waiting for treatment has harmed their mental health. Those are not simply statistics about healthcare; they reflect the kind of society that we have become. That brings me to the fundamental difference in how the SDLP approaches this debate. We are social democrats who believe that good healthcare is not a privilege to be purchased by those who can afford it; it is a fundamental part of the social contract. A person's ability to walk without pain, to remain in employment, to enjoy their retirement or to live independently should never depend on the size of their bank balance; yet, that is increasingly the reality that we are creating. Those who can afford private appointments find a way forward, and those who cannot are left waiting, as we have heard, for a decade. That is not equality: that is a two-tier healthcare system emerging before our eyes, and that is precisely why the SDLP wants to see something new.

We cannot simply manage the decline of the system that we have. We must have the ambition to build something better. We need a health service that intervenes early rather than one that waits until people become seriously unwell. We need a system that sees healthcare not as an expenditure but as an investment in people's lives, their dignity and, of course, our wider economy. Let us consider the absurdity of our present approach. We leave somebody waiting for treatment for years while their condition deteriorates. They lose their job, their mental health suffers and, eventually, they require more complex and expensive medical intervention. We have not saved anything; we have simply transferred the cost from one Department to another, while leaving human beings to pay the greatest price.

We have heard, in today's debate, Members referencing their constituents. I think of the constituent who told me that he had lost the use of his knee and his leg when he was a teenager. He is now in his 40s and needs a replacement, but he cannot get it.

He has children of his own but is not able to do the things that he would like to do with them, such as play football, take long walks in the park, hike in the mountains or go camping. He cannot do those things, so the process is not simply robbing him of his dignity, his ability to get about and his independence but robbing his children of precious moments that go past far too quickly and cannot be replaced.

I therefore welcome today's debate, but it should be much more than a debate. I hope that the Minister takes back what he has heard to the Department, given the sheer number of people on waiting lists and the length of time that they are having to wait. Those people deserve an intervention that will help give them the quality of life that they deserve and help give their children the quality of upbringing that they need.

Mr Robinson: Like others, I very much welcome the opportunity to speak in support of an issue that affects an extraordinary number of people across Northern Ireland. From personal experience, I know that it is one that has a profound impact on people. The Arthritis UK report 'From Breaking Point to Recovery', which was published in February, details how more than 550,000 adults, young people and children here are living with arthritis or another musculoskeletal condition.

I speak today not just as an MLA but as someone who has personal experience of living with chronic pain. I was struck by a drunk driver in 1994. One of my injuries was a fracture to my spine. I have experienced persistent back pain. I have been in and out of hospital and have experienced very long waits. I also have problems associated with arthritis in my temporomandibular joint. Anyone who has lived with chronic pain will understand how exhausting it can be. It can affect your sleep, your concentration, your ability to sit, walk and stand and your ability to get through a working day, and that is if you can still work. Then add in the medication. Powerful drugs can sometimes leave you feeling like a shell. I go through good periods, when I cope very well, but there are then the flare-ups and the days on which something as straightforward as sitting at an office desk, sitting in the Chamber or driving a car can be a real challenge.

One of the difficulties with chronic pain from MSK conditions is that it is often invisible. People can look perfectly well on the outside and be smiling and laughing. All the while, however, they are dealing with considerable discomfort on the inside. Many with MSK pain still work, meet their responsibilities and get on with life as best they can, but that does not mean that there are not days when they really do struggle. I have no problem saying that living with chronic pain also affects my mood. Having MSK chronic pain can be something that I constantly have to factor into my day. I have to think about how long I will be sitting, how much activity I can manage and whether something that I do today will leave me paying for it tomorrow.

The scale of MSK problems is made even worse by the waiting times for diagnosis and treatment in Northern Ireland. The latest figures show the mountains that people are having to climb. In June this year, 36,161 people were waiting for a first-time consultant-led outpatient appointment in orthopaedics, with 53% of them waiting for more than 52 weeks. That is over 19,000 people, with some waiting more than three years. In rheumatology, more than 11,000 patients — 62% of those who are waiting — have been waiting for over a year to see a specialist, with some waiting almost eight years. That is not how anybody should have to live. For those people requiring orthopaedic surgery, including hip and knee replacements, more than 11,000 have been waiting for over a year for treatment, with some facing waits of almost six years. There is a tendency to view musculoskeletal conditions as being solely a health issue, but they are also an economic and social issue.

Given that more than 550,000 people here are living with arthritis or another MSK condition, I hope that the Health Minister will agree to the appointment of a dedicated clinical lead for MSK health to bring a sharp focus to the matter. I have no doubt that he accepts that living with chronic pain while waiting for years to be seen can lead to a worsening of a person's physical and mental health.

Given the finding that 67% of respondents to Arthritis UK's survey said that their condition affected their ability to work, I hope that there are discussions between the Department of Health and the Minister for the Economy about the economic consequences of musculoskeletal conditions and the importance of earlier intervention in helping people to remain in employment.

As someone with personal experience of the issue, I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.

Mr Donnelly: As we have heard, arthritis and MSK conditions affect millions of people across the UK, including 550,000 people in Northern Ireland — with a population of 1·9 million, that means 37% of the adult population and 5% of the children and young people here. Many of those people live with pain, mobility issues and even disability because of their condition. Many suffer for years on our shamefully long waiting lists, awaiting treatment that, in some cases, never comes. I thank Alan for sharing his experience of living with chronic pain, which was very powerful but is, sadly, typical.

When you are on a waiting list, your condition does not stay static. It does not just pause until you get treatment; it progresses. That means more pain, more medication, less mobility and less getting out and about, be it to work or to socialise with friends and family, which means more stress and more impact on your mental health. As a patient on a waiting list told me, you do not live on a waiting list; you just exist.

I thank Arthritis UK for its report 'From Breaking Point to Recovery', which amplifies patient experiences and clinicians' insights and makes strong recommendations. I also thank John and Sara from Arthritis UK Northern Ireland for their continued engagement, informative events and reports and even advice.

One thing that I have learned about from many patients on waiting lists — they raise it time and again — is the uncertainty. It is about not knowing when or if you will get a treatment; not knowing how bad it may get before then; and not knowing if you will be well enough to get a treatment should it finally be offered. Waiting well is something that could and should happen. Patients should be contacted regularly so that they are informed about where and when treatment may happen and about what they can do to prepare for a treatment or an operation in order to get the full benefit from it.

As we are all aware, many people in Northern Ireland now turn to private healthcare to get timely care and treatment, sometimes spending huge amounts of money — life savings, money gathered by families and even borrowed money — to do so. Those people are not in the health service; they have to purchase healthcare. That is the very definition of a two-tier system: those who can afford it can access it; those who cannot afford it do not.

I acknowledge the reopening of the cross-border scheme, which is very welcome to the many people across Northern Ireland who are awaiting operations, a high proportion of which are orthopaedic procedures. There are barriers to accessing it, however, as money must be paid up front. I ask the Minister whether he has plans to expand the scheme or to make it more accessible to people on our waiting lists.

A majority but not all of these patients are older people, many of whom, having worked and paid into the system for their whole life, are being denied care when they need it. Instead of getting that care, they are condemned to years of increasing pain and decreasing mobility, disability and mental health stress. I echo my colleague Kate Nicholl's call for the reform of the health service so that we can deliver more services in a timely manner to those who require them. Until we do that, things may get even worse.

We support the motion and call on the Minister to implement the strategic reforms in the Arthritis UK report, namely the establishment of a strategic approach to MSK healthcare; improvement of care pathways and diagnosis; transformation of waiting times, patient support and communication; and increased patient awareness and education. Meaningful change for arthritis and MSK patients is possible and will make a huge difference to thousands of lives across Northern Ireland.

Mr Clarke: This is a day for confessions: my colleague confessed his problems, and, equally, I confess that I have suffered from psoriatic arthritis for years. I bumped into representatives of Arthritis UK during party conference season a number of months ago.

As someone who has been through the arthritic journey — from seeing a GP and getting a consultant-led appointment reasonably quickly to receiving OT, physio, scans, X-rays and breath tests — I was shocked to be told by the representative that there were waits of up to six years. I had been living in denial, because that did not represent my journey. My journey, led by the consultants, team and ward at the Antrim Area Hospital, has been excellent. Colin McGrath spoke about people talking about their world. That is what my world looked like, and that is what I thought everybody got. I was shocked to hear Arthritis UK say that the reality for others is different.

Just as Alan does, I will suffer bad days, but we have received medication. I am concerned about the people who have not had the chances that some of the rest of us have had and have not had the treatment plans from which some of us have benefited. In today's society, that is deeply disappointing. We often hear about the wonderful health service, which it is, if you can get in, but, clearly, there is a problem with arthritis treatment. If it had not been for Arthritis UK's work in leading this, we probably would not be having the debate today. Colin McGrath is right: people are suffering in silence. The pain is absolutely brutal at times, and it affects your life and how you can get on with your life.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope that you will allow me to tease this out. I looked at today's statement from the Ulster Unionist Party. It says:

I am sorry, but if that is the change that we are getting in the health service, it is not a change that I want to see. I want to see a change back to where we were and the services that we used to have. I heard a representative from the BMA on the radio this morning, talking about the extra £40 million that it got to help with GPs. She chose her words very carefully. She said that it is "a start". We have been through three Health Ministers in a short space of time. We have not had an opportunity to raise the issue with the current Health Minister, but we have raised many times in the Chamber with his two predecessors, Mr Swann and Mr Nesbitt, the emerging themes of how the health service has stripped GPs away and there being no accountability. I was disappointed this morning, when I heard the extra investment being described as only "a start". Twenty million pounds a year will be put in for the next two years, and there is no time frame for when things are going to change or when people are going to see benefits.

I know that the Minister is going to agree with this and give us all the nice words about how he is going to make all the changes in the health service. Why has it got to this point, Minister? I know that you are relatively new to the post, but why has this service been allowed to decline to such an extent that it has taken an external organisation to raise awareness and bring its report, in February, to say how bad things are? Where is the Health Department? Why is it not leading this? It is clear that there has been insufficient oversight in the Health Department to allow this service to run into the shambles that it has become. Given all the advances that have been made and the new treatments that are available, how can things have changed so dramatically that people have to wait for years before they can see a consultant?

I wholeheartedly support the motion. I wish those who are waiting for an appointment the best in their journey. Their recovery will only start once they get their appointment and get into the system. In my journey, I went through three medications before we got to the one that made my life a bit better. I feel very hurt about the people who have had none of those treatments and whose daily lives are being affected. I support the motion.

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

Mr Butler (The Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank all Members who have contributed to the debate. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important motion. I recognise the challenges that are faced by people who are living with arthritis and other musculoskeletal conditions across Northern Ireland. Some of those have been shared within the Chamber. I also acknowledge Arthritis UK and the important work that it does to support people living with these conditions and give them a voice. Its report, 'From Breaking Point to Recovery: Prioritising Musculoskeletal Healthcare in Northern Ireland', which was published in February this year, highlights the challenges that patients face and makes important recommendations about improving care and support. I welcome that contribution because, ultimately, the debate is about people, as all Members who spoke in the debate have referenced.

It is about people who wake up in pain every morning, and people who struggle with the very things that many of us take for granted, such as getting dressed, walking to the shops, going to work or, indeed, even simply spending time with family. The report estimates that MSK conditions affect 37% of adults and 5% of children. Diane Dodds talked about young people who have been affected, and it gives us some sense of just how many lives are touched by those conditions. We must also remember the families and carers who provide support, often making significant adjustments to their lives. When we talk about improving support for arthritis and MSK care, we are not simply talking about waiting lists or hospital appointments; we are talking about people's lives.

I acknowledge the concerns raised in the motion, particularly around waiting times, which were put quite eloquently and pointedly. Members have every right to do that, and I take no personal hurt from anybody who levels a criticism with regard to my role as the Health Minister, because they are absolutely right. It is our friends and families — my friends and family, and the people I work with — who are impacted on.

Mrs Dillon: Thank you, Minister, for taking an intervention. You are right to say that there are many who will criticise, but I have a solution that will help at least a small number of people with musculoskeletal conditions, and that is to remove the one-year waiting period for the cross-border scheme. I have asked your departmental officials to reduce the time, and they reduced it from two years to one year. You have been unable to spend that money because the one-year waiting period remains in place. Today, can you commit to removing the one-year waiting period and allowing the people who would benefit from accessing help immediately to do so, particularly those who could be economically active if they could have their surgery?

Mr Butler: I am not sure that that was a brief intervention, but I know that you have written to me on that, and I think that I have written back to you. There is an analysis of the cost and the system required to do that. Unfortunately, it has been disappointing to note the wider uptake of the scheme, because it has proven beneficial in the past, but, unfortunately, the price structure has changed in that time. We should always be open to examining any avenue that will bring change.

The motion highlights particularly distressing examples, including patients who have waited for nearly eight years. Kate Nicholl mentioned someone who had waited for 10 years for a first consultant-led appointment, which is totally beyond the concept when you are in pain. I recognise the frustration and the uncertainty that those delays bring, particularly for someone who is living with persistent pain. At the end of June 2026, more than 36,000 patients were waiting for a first orthopaedic outpatient appointment, and almost 21,000 of those were inpatient or day cases. As I have said, those are not just points on a paper; they are people in the Chamber and our very family members. Behind every one of those numbers is a person who may be struggling to remain active, work or care for their family. Mr Robinson made a point that is worth reading into the record, because there is some ongoing work, and it is not just a health issue, as has been said. In fact, the Communities Minister, from his own party, is leading a £16 million pathways to work and well-being transformation project, supported by the Department of Health and the Department for the Economy, and it is looking at those very issues.

So there is some live work under way, and it is cross-departmental, but that is not necessarily going to crack the waiting list problem, which is mine, and I am trying my best to find solutions. I know that we have a long way to go, and progress cannot come quickly enough for someone who is waiting in pain, but important work is taking place right across our workforce. For example, in 2026-27, at the heart of our efforts in elective care to reduce waiting times and improve access to planned care, £80 million was ring-fenced as an Executive commitment to support additional elective care capacity, alongside £85 million for urgent red-flag services, and that is a significant investment, particularly given the financial pressures facing our health service. I am sure that Members have constituents, as I have had, who have benefited from that, but there is a long way to go.

Improving the care is not simply about spending the money that is being ring-fenced; it is about doing things differently. It is about making the best use of our hospitals and facilities, and, most importantly, the skills and expertise of our health and social care staff, and that is the multidisciplinary team. Through our day procedure centres, elective overnight stay centres and wider recovery initiatives, we are working to treat more patients and build a more sustainable service for the future. Orthopaedics is an important part of that work. For someone who is waiting for a hip or knee replacement, delayed treatment can mean struggling to walk, losing confidence and becoming less independent and, potentially, socially isolated in some cases. That is why my Department has been working closely with clinicians in the trusts to improve how orthopaedic services are delivered. You may be familiar with the Getting It Right First Time (GIRFT) programme, which is very useful. It has identified better ways of organising services, improving productivity and reducing unnecessary delays. Through our regional orthopaedic network, clinicians and service leaders are working together to share good practice and support more consistent care across Northern Ireland. As Mr Clarke pointed out, there are some areas of good service, but we need to ensure that everybody gets a good service. Patients should be able to expect high standards of care regardless of where they live. It does not matter whether you live in Belleek or Belfast; you should be able to access the same level of care.

We are also working to increase activity, improve waiting list management and make the journey from assessment to treatment more straightforward. Of course, none of that can happen without our dedicated workforce. I recognise the challenges in recruiting and retaining specialist staff. That is why £6·5 million has been allocated through the elective care framework to expand training places in vulnerable specialities, including orthopaedics.

When it comes to rheumatology waiting times for people living with inflammatory arthritis, early diagnosis and treatment can help to prevent long-term damage and enable them to remain active and independent. That is why we need to get through the waiting lists and provide early diagnosis and support. All five health and social care trusts operate rapid access clinics, enabling GPs to refer patients requiring urgent special assessment. Patients with suspected acute inflammatory joint conditions are typically assessed within one or two weeks, while those with possible inflammatory arthritis are prioritised for assessment within six weeks. Those arrangements help to ensure that patients with the most urgent clinical needs receive timely attention, but many others continue to face unacceptable waits.

Trusts are working to make better use of available capacity through nurse-led services, waiting list initiatives and clinical triage. Work is also under way to re-establish the Northern Ireland rheumatology network to support collaboration and service improvement. I will look to see that it receives appropriate support to get it mobilised.

As mentioned in many of the speeches, supporting people while they wait is a very worthy initiative, and we need to ensure that that continues to happen. While reducing waiting times must remain a central objective, our patients need to be able to recover with as little pain and as much movement as possible. Therefore, people waiting for treatment need more than a place on a waiting list. They need information, reassurance and practical support to manage their health and well-being.

My Department is taking forward a Support While Waiting policy, which is informed by patients, carers, trusts and voluntary and community organisations. The policy will establish consistent principles for supporting patients, focusing on clear communication, appropriate signposting and helping people to remain as healthy as possible while they wait. Alongside that, in 2025-26, my Department invested £500,000 through the Support While Waiting grant scheme, which supported 20 voluntary and community organisations to help people on waiting lists, including those awaiting orthopaedic and MSK care. I was pleased to announce in September that the scheme would continue for a second year. Even when treatment cannot be provided immediately, there are things that we can do to help people to maintain their well-being, confidence and independence. I think that that is hugely important.

Taking a more joined-up approach, Arthritis UK's report makes an important point about the need for a more coordinated approach to MSK care. I agree that we need to consider the whole patient journey, from diagnosis to treatment, rehabilitation and ongoing support. Important programmes are already under way through the elective care framework, orthopaedics, rheumatology, primary care and rehabilitation. Those programmes must work together, however, because improving care is not simply about getting someone through a hospital appointment; it is about ensuring that they receive the right support at the right time.

As many in the Chamber will know, particularly those on the Health Committee, bringing care closer to home is a significant priority for the Department of Health. For many people living with arthritis, their GP and local community services are where that support begins. General practitioners play a vital role in diagnosing conditions, managing symptoms and helping people to access further care.

Our primary care multidisciplinary teams are also making more support available closer to home. In 2025-26, those teams delivered an additional 354,000 consultations, providing access to services, including physiotherapy, social work and mental health support. For someone struggling with pain and mobility, accessing physiotherapy through their GP practice can make a real difference, helping them to receive support earlier and potentially avoid an unnecessary hospital visit. It is also at the heart of our wider vision for neighbourhood care.

In March, my Department published its vision of a new neighbourhood model of health and well-being. Seventeen integrated neighbourhood teams are planned across Northern Ireland, bringing together primary care, trusts and voluntary and community organisations. My ambition is to create services that are more connected, preventative and responsive to local need.

Rehabilitation has been mentioned today as another important part of helping people to live well with MSK conditions. Appropriate rehabilitation can help to restore confidence, improve mobility and maintain independence. My Department is progressing well work to establish regional rehabilitation principles and expectations, helping to improve consistency of care across Northern Ireland.

We must also recognise that chronic pain affects more than physical health. It can affect confidence, relationships and mental well-being. That is why we need to see the whole person, not simply the condition. Our mental health strategy, alongside our wider work in primary care and community services, recognises the importance of integrated person-centred care.

As a couple of Members mentioned, the motion highlights the economic impact of arthritis and MSK conditions. For many people, working is about more than earning a living; it provides purpose, independence, financial security and a sense of belonging. When someone has to reduce their hours, take extended sick leave or retire early because of pain or reduced mobility, the consequences can be significant for them, their family and, indeed, the wider economy. That is why earlier intervention, effective treatment and support to remain in or return to work are so important. My Department is supporting the Department for Communities-led pathways to work and well-being transformation project — we will have to get that title shortened — which has received £16 million in transformational funding. That programme is exploring how health, employment, skills and community services can work more effectively together to support people whose health affects their ability to work. I welcome that because helping people to remain active and economically engaged benefits individuals, families and our wider society.

I return to the recommendations from Arthritis UK, which are mentioned in the motion. Its report highlights the importance of reducing waiting times, improving patient support, strengthening care pathways and taking a more coordinated approach to MSK health. Those are important priorities that are reflected in many of the programmes already under way. I recognise that financial and workforce pressures mean that we cannot deliver every improvement as quickly as we would wish, but we should not allow those challenges to diminish our ambition.

A number of points in the recommendations would probably be difficult to deliver within the mandate, so I want to be clear that I will be unable to engage with all of them. I want to point out, however, that, as has hopefully been picked up throughout my remarks, much great work has already been embarked on with regard to some of the report's recommendations. The report is much more than its recommendations; it sets out the lived testimony of people who are suffering with arthritis, rheumatology and pain due to MSK conditions.

Improving arthritis and MSK care is about helping people to get back to living their best lives. Someone being able to walk without constant pain, a parent being able to play with their children and a child being able to go to school and play with their friends are the things that matter and should matter to everyone in the House. I know that, for people who are waiting and struggling today, that change cannot come quickly enough. I acknowledge our dedicated Health and Social Care staff, whose compassion, expertise and commitment are central to the improvements that we all want and need to see. There are significant challenges ahead, but I know what can be achieved when our health professionals, our communities, our voluntary sector and, crucially, service users come together. I want a health and social care system that not just treats people but gives them the support that they need to live well. Improving waiting times is not just about reducing numbers but about improving lives. That is what I am determined to do.

A number of points were very useful. The debate has been an exercise where health was not a political issue. In the Chamber, in the Health Committee and more widely — even, sometimes, on Twitter — Members can rightly be sharp with me about what is not happening, as opposed to what is happening. As I have said before, I will never take it personally. As I said to the Chair of the Committee, iron sharpens iron. Better outcomes in Health and Social Care are better outcomes for all our people. I will be equally honest with you guys about what can be done and what remains challenging.

I will leave you with this final thought: this place needs to work. For five years out of 10 we were not here. We have challenging budgets and a lot of work to do. We need to get at it.

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

Ms Flynn: Thank you very much, a LeasCheann Comhairle

I thank all Members for their contributions and my colleagues, Philip and Linda, for tabling the motion with me. Like other Members, we give particular thanks to Arthritis UK, which has highlighted its important piece of work with MLAs to give us the opportunity to debate it.

Trevor is not in the Chamber now. It was interesting that everyone talked about the impact of the conditions on real people. I found it fascinating to hear from Trevor and Alan, and I thank them both for sharing their experiences of living with those conditions.

It was interesting to hear Trevor talk about how happy he is with his treatment and care pathway and how surprising he found it that there are so many people who are living with a similar condition but have not received the same support and treatment. There is something in that.

We talk loads about how our trusts operate differently and how they have their own priorities. The Minister has already responded to the debate, but I wonder whether the disparity among our trusts has been looked into and whether there is any potential — it may have already been discussed or considered — for trusts to cooperate on their waiting lists. Kate referred to how someone in Belfast waited 10 years just to receive an initial appointment with their consultant before even getting added to a waiting list for surgery. In my constituency, I have dealt with a couple of cases in which people are waiting not 10 years but not far off it: five, six or seven years. The waiting lists in the Belfast Trust even to get to see a consultant are really lengthy. People are having to wait all that time before they are even put on a waiting list.

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for giving way. This is a good opportunity to go back over some of the good work that has been done. The Executive ring-fenced £80 million for the elective care pathway and £85 million for red-flag care. We have seen places such as Lagan Valley Hospital and Downe Hospital become centres of excellence for certain conditions. That is the trajectory that we should be on. I was in Lagan Valley Hospital recently, where I met a gentleman from Dungannon. It was his first time in that hospital for a procedure, which is what we are talking about today. It is therefore part of the wider transformation piece to get care in the right place at the right time.

Ms Flynn: I was going to comment on the £80 million for the new elective care centres. That is welcome stuff, and we can see how the centres are having a positive impact. If, however, there are further options to try to get people off waiting lists, perhaps we can explore them. Linda and a few others mentioned the cross-border reimbursement scheme. If you are looking into that scheme, Minister, is it possible for you to look at removing the one-year waiting period? Doing that may deal with people who are already on a waiting list for surgery, but it will not deal with people who are on a waiting list to be put on to a waiting list. I do not know whether there is any more potential for extra contractual referrals — ECRs — or for collaboration with consultants on the island, in Britain or wherever so that consultations can be carried out to get people on to a waiting list. I want to find out whether the Department is looking at all those aspects.

Mrs Dillon: Will the Member take an intervention?

Ms Flynn: I do not think that I will get any additional time, but yes.

Mrs Dillon: I will make it quick. The Minister outlined how the price of such surgeries has changed, which, he believes, is a barrier: it is the least of the barriers. The one-year wait is the big barrier. I have people coming into my constituency office daily about that. I sincerely implore the Minister to look at the one-year waiting time.

Ms Flynn: I thank the Member for her intervention. I know that the Minister has taken that on board. Hopefully, we will get a positive response, because that would make a big difference.

The figure of 550,000 for how many people living with persistent pain are on waiting lists is massive; I did not know that it was so big. Diane and others mentioned that that includes 19,000 young people. As the Minister said, when you think about wee kids going into school and living with that pain, that is real-life stuff. Living with that pain has an impact not only on people's physical health but on their mental health. Philip mentioned how depression is four times more common among people who are living with that pain. Although work is being done, all the evidence and statistics are there about why we need to strive to do more. Hopefully, there will be clarity on the reimbursement scheme and on whether there is any potential to look at using consultants elsewhere to reduce the waiting lists of people getting their initial diagnosis. I appreciate the updates that the Minister gave in his response.

Do I still have time, Mr Deputy Speaker?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Yes.

Ms Flynn: I do. I will say something about the Support While Waiting grant scheme. I have 10 minutes: I always get my times mixed up. I did not get to finish my speech earlier because I had spoken too long on the Committee on Procedures business. It is really important that we provide support for people living with long-term chronic conditions and pain. Last week, I met an endometriosis women's group in west Belfast that has set up the programme Better Days through the Support While Waiting scheme.

It really is having a positive impact, because those women can come together and speak about what they are living through. You can see how they are helping each other through that peer support, but the most important thing is that it does not become a substitute for reducing waiting times — it will be wrong if it does. Investment in such things, where needed, is important, but, essentially, let us try to do all that we can to get people off waiting lists.