Northern Ireland Assembly, 4 March 2024

373 contributions from 59 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

At the outset, I put on record my concern that, during Question Time at both plenary sittings last week, a total of five Members were not in their place when they were called for items of business listed against their name. I appreciate that the Assembly has not been sitting for a number of years, that there was an influx of new Members, and that there may therefore be a lessening in awareness of the standards of parliamentary courtesy that are required in certain circumstances, but I remind all Members that there is an expectation that if you are not available to be present in the Chamber to address an item of business that is listed in your name, it is courteous to the House that notification of your absence be made, as a matter of urgency, to either the Speaker's Office or the Business Office. If you were not in your place and did not give notice, it is expected that you come to the House to apologise. Should I have to return to this matter, consideration will be given to sanctions that may need to be put in place. If Ministers are expected to show courtesy to the House, the same applies to Members.

Members' Statements

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

If Members wish to be called to make a statement, they should indicate that by rising in their place. Members who are called will have up to three minutes in which to make their statement. I remind Members that interventions are not permitted. I will not take any points of order on this or any other matter until the item of business has finished.

Matthew O'Toole (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I pay tribute to a giant of Down GAA, Dan McCartan, who passed away over the weekend. He and his brother were part of the heroic generation of Down footballers who won the All-Ireland in 1960 and brought the Sam Maguire Cup north of the border for the first time in history. Many members of those teams from the 1960s are still very much with us, but, over the past number of years, several of them, including Dan's brother, James, have passed. It is important to reflect not just on the enormous sporting legacy but cultural and community legacy that they leave behind.

Before 1960, a team from north of the border had never won the Sam Maguire; indeed, very few Ulster teams had come close to winning it. It is often talked about by people who remember it as being a moment of profound joy and relief. There was a sense almost of liberation and self-esteem for people who, for a variety of reasons, did not feel that either jurisdiction on the island of Ireland necessarily treasured their contribution at that time. It was a hugely significant moment that, in the 1960s, brought together the whole community in County Down. People not from traditionally GAA-supporting backgrounds still recall vividly the emotion and sense of pride that they felt.

Dan McCartan was not just a Down GAA legend: he was closely involved with, I think, three GAA clubs, including, most recently, Carryduff GAC, which celebrated its half-centenary in the past couple of years. He and his family, including his son Mark, were a critical part of establishing and building that club into what it is today, one of the most successful and thriving clubs in County Down. It is also on the edge of south Belfast, and it is a source of immense pride that Gaelic games in that part of the city and the county are growing. Dan McCartan was a huge part of building that legacy. He was a dentist in Belfast, who combined his contribution to Gaelic games and community life with performing that role and public service.

It is important to pay tribute to the immense contribution of Dan McCartan — part of the heroic generation of footballers who brought pride, joy and self-esteem to the county that I grew up in, County Down — to mark his passing and to pass on our condolences to his wider family circle, everyone involved in Carryduff GAC, his friends and all those who treasure the contribution that he and the rest of that heroic generation made to our community.

Aisling Reilly (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Idir 1ú – 17ú de mhí Mhárta bímid ag ceiliúradh Sheachtain na Gaeilge 2024 fud fad na tíre. Is ócáid iontach tábhachtach í Seachtain na Gaeilge i saol lucht labhartha na Gaeilge. Is deis í chun ceiliúradh a dhéanamh ar ár gcultúr, ar ár teanga dhúchais agus ar ár bhféiniúlacht. Tugann sí deis do gach duine páirt a bheith acu sa teanga agus leis an chultúr, teanga agus féiniúlacht sin a fheicéail i gcroílár an phobail. Le linn an cheiliúrtha seo, bíonn imeachtaí agus gníomhaíochtaí éagsúla ar siúl ar fud na tíre, ag spreagadh daoine chun an Ghaeilge a úsáid agus a chur chun cinn.

Ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a gabháil le cúpla grúpa amuigh ansin, go háirithe le Conradh na Gaeilge, Foras na Gaeilge, Féile an Earraigh agus le neart grupaí eile a imríonn ról mór sa phleanáil le linn an ama seo go háirithe. Tá an t-adh orainn go bhfuil Seachtain na Gaeilge againn, ní hamháin don cheiliúradh — agus tá seo ríthábhachtach — go bhfuil sí ann don chéad ghlúin eile a bheas ag ceiliúradh na teanga go ceann blianta fada amach romhainn. Mar fhocal scoir, ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil le pobal na Gaeilge a sheasann an fód lá i ndiaidh lae agus a bhíonn mar ghuth láidir amuigh ansin. Beidh mise, mar bhall den phobal seo, i mo ghuth láidir istigh sa Teach seo.

Mar sin, coinnígí bhur súile ar oscailt do na himeachtaí a bheidh ag tarlú sa cheantar thart ort sna laethanta atá romhainn. Bígí páirteach iontu agus bainigí sult astu.

From 1-17 March, we will celebrate Irish Language Week 2024 throughout the country. Seachtain na Gaeilge is a very important occasion in the life of Irish speakers. It is an opportunity to celebrate our culture, our native language and our identity. It gives everyone a chance to be part of the language and to see that culture, language and identity celebrated in the heart of the community. During the celebration, there are events and activities throughout the country, encouraging people to use and promote the Irish language. Thanks are due to Conradh na Gaeilge, Foras na Gaeilge, Féile an Earraigh and the many other groups that play such an important role in planning these events at this time. We are lucky to have Irish Language Week, not only for the celebrations but — this is so important — for the rising generation that will celebrate the language in years to come. Finally, I thank the Irish language community for standing their ground day after day and for providing a strong voice. As a member of that community, I will be a strong voice in this House. So keep your eyes open for the events that are happening in your district in the coming days. Take part and enjoy.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

Today, I mark the 200th anniversary of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI), which is dedicated to saving lives at sea. As we sit, a service of thanksgiving is taking place in Westminster Abbey, with local representatives in attendance, including the president of Kilkeel RNLI, Merwyn Hanna MBE. I thank all involved in the organisation for their commitment and dedicated service. Representing South Down and with family connections to the sea for generations, I truly value the brave work of the RNLI.

There are two RNLI stations in my constituency: Kilkeel and Newcastle. Kilkeel RNLI, the closest to me, was set up in the 1980s. Kilkeel's busy and vibrant fishing industry drove the need for a local station and lifeboats. Teams of committed volunteers and staff have worked for all these years and have saved many lives through the Kilkeel station. Another important role that they play is in the recovery, for their families, of those who are, sadly, lost at sea.

On 14 February 2002, the Tullaghmurray Lass left Kilkeel harbour to fish and did not return. Three generations of the Greene family were lost that day. With an extensive search over the following weeks, the Kilkeel RNLI team played a key part in the recovery. That devastation tore the heart from the local community. Just two years later, another tragedy struck, with the loss of Colin Donnelly. Again, Kilkeel RNLI played a critical role in the recovery. We will remember those families always. A seafarers memorial is in place at Kilkeel harbour to remember all those who were lost.

Newcastle RNLI also played a critical role over the years. In 1843, when 16 fishing boats left Newcastle and Annalong in calm waters, a sudden change in the weather resulted in 73 people dying and 14 boats being sunk. The RNLI played a key role, and a silver medal was awarded to member George Thompson for the lives that he saved that day.

Both stations in my constituency are committed. They are cross-community and have male and female crew members. There is no discrimination in lives lost at sea. The RNLI should be commended for that. For seafarers from South Down, their last hope is often the RNLI volunteers, who risk their lives for others. The lifeboat crews, the onshore support, the volunteers, fundraisers and all who are involved should stand proudly today as the entire community salutes their work to save lives. After 200 years, I thank them all and send best wishes for the future of the RNLI as it continues to be dedicated to saving lives at sea.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

In making my Member's statement, I follow on from what Ms Forsythe said by congratulating the RNLI. Today, we stand on the cusp of history, celebrating a monumental milestone in maritime safety and rescue. Today is the 200th anniversary of the RNLI. It has provided two centuries of unwavering commitment to saving lives at sea.

Founded in 1824 by William Hillary, the RNLI has been a beacon of hope for countless souls in distress, embodying the spirit of courage, selflessness and resilience. For two centuries, its volunteers have braved the tempests, risking their lives to rescue those who are in peril on the sea. In Northern Ireland, particularly in my constituency of Strangford, which has the longest coastline, the RNLI's presence is deeply felt, with stations dotting the coastline, ready to spring into action at a moment's notice. They are all volunteers. From Kilkeel to Donaghadee, from Newcastle to Portaferry, the stations stand as pillars of safety, guarding our shores with vigilance and dedication.

The RNLI's legacy is measured not just in years or numbers but in the countless lives saved, the families reunited and the communities strengthened. Its commitment to training, innovation and collaboration has made our waters safer for all who venture out to sea.

As we celebrate this historic occasion, let us not forget the sacrifices made by the brave men and women of the RNLI nor the support of the communities that stand with them. Only yesterday, Portaferry RNLI was called out to a casualty, a boat that had broken free and was drifting inland from Kearney, at the edge of the Ards peninsula. The volunteers give up their time, often walking away from family events, dinners and their sleep in order to help others. Together with the coastguard, they form an unbreakable chain of solidarity, ensuring that no call for help goes unanswered. Amidst the celebrations, however, let us recognise the challenges that lie ahead. Climate change, technological advancements and evolving patterns of maritime activity demand that we remain vigilant and adaptable.

The RNLI's 200th anniversary is not just a celebration of the past but a call to action for the future. Let us in the House reaffirm our commitment to supporting the RNLI, whether that is through donations, volunteering or simply spreading awareness of its invaluable work. Together, we can ensure that the next 200 years are marked by even greater achievements in maritime safety and rescue. Let us salute the Royal National Lifeboat Institution on this momentous occasion and honour its legacy of courage, compassion and service humanity. May it continue to be the guardian of the sea for generations to come.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I take this opportunity to welcome the registration of Irish grass-fed beef as an all-island protected geographical indication (PGI). That designation will deliver significant benefits for our local beef farmers and the high-quality beef that they produce. I pay tribute to the Department here; the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine; the Livestock and Meat Commission; Bord Bia; and, indeed, you, Mr Speaker, as a previous AERA Minister who did a lot of work to progress the designation. I was delighted to see our local Minister Muir join his counterpart, Minister McConalogue, at a joint event in County Donegal on Friday to mark the very special occasion.

It is a fantastic example of North/South working in partnership to make the most of our unique access to the European Union for the benefit of everyone. Our beef farmers, who have created and sustained worldwide recognition of such high-quality produce thoroughly deserve the acknowledgement.

The grass-based system of farming across Ireland makes our local beef unique. The PGI status recognises that high-quality standard for customers here and abroad. The granting of the all-island PGI status for Irish grass-fed beef through the EU Commission will help to deliver unique economic benefits for our food industry by increasing the North's share of beef exports to the European Union, which, in turn, will generate more money back into the local economy.

Securing all-island protective status will strengthen the hand of our farmers to showcase our local, distinctive, high-quality beef on the world stage. I and my party will continue to work with the Agriculture Ministers, North and South, to deliver for our farmers and to ensure that they can maximise every available opportunity to promote our world-class local farming industry.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I rise with surprise and concern as I have become aware that 14 MOT lifts have cracks appearing on them again. That is concerning for employees' safety in our test centres and, indeed, could add to delays in MOT testing. Many people are already frustrated with the current backlog: I declare an interest as somebody who is waiting for an MOT test, and I know people who work in the Driver and Vehicle Agency (DVA). Given the concerns around the MOT testing system, I was surprised that my question for urgent oral answer for today was not accepted, as a series of questions need to be answered on the matter urgently.

The cracks were found on MAHA lifts, which were at the centre of MOT testing delays in 2019. My understanding is that the DVA has known about the issue for a number of weeks, yet nothing has come from the Department. That raises serious questions for the Infrastructure Minister, his Department and the DVA; officials from which will be coming to the Infrastructure Committee on Wednesday. The Department spent £1·8 million to replace 52 of the 55 lifts when cracks appeared in 2019. Overall, it cost the Department nearly £4 million in backlogs in the MOT testing system.

How have we managed to reach the situation again? The number of lifts affected is thought to be 14 in total. The condition of one lift is very severe, and it has been sent to Germany for further testing, but why is the manufacturer checking its own homework? Should there not be an independent investigation of it? Undoubtedly, it will cause further delays in the MOT testing system. Therefore, whilst we await the outcome of the further testing in Germany, it is important that the Minister clearly outlines what he and his Department are doing to curb the looming crisis. Lessons should have been learnt from 2019, and it is important that we are honest with the public in relation to that.

Although I make my comments today as a DUP MLA, as Chair of the Infrastructure Committee, I will be asking the DVA to provide the most up-to-date information to the Committee to ensure that everything is being done to assure the public and employees on the issue.

John Stewart (UUP, East Antrim)

I am sure that everyone in the Chamber will join me in sending our best wishes to Ireland's male cricketers, who had their first-ever test match victory against Afghanistan on Friday, which they won by six wickets. That was no mean feat at all, as Ireland is the smallest of the 12 nations that have test match status. It was their first-ever test match win in eight attempts over 20-odd years. They sit alongside countries that have prioritised cricket, such as India, New Zealand and Australia, and it really is a remarkable event.

Cricket is a sport that is growing here, but it is still remarkably small. Hopefully, the maiden victory for the male test-match team will encourage not only participation across the sport but much-needed investment.

I will finish by congratulating the skipper, Andrew Balbirnie, and his team, all the staff and those cricketers from Northern Ireland, including man of the match, Mark Adair, and Andy McBrine and Paul Stirling from my constituency. The team is remarkable, and I am sure that we all wish the players well.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

I rise this afternoon to highlight the situation around funding for specialist counselling services for survivors of sexual violence. Nexus has been providing a specialist service for five years, fully aware that it would come to an end on 31 March — this month. However, Nexus and, indeed, members of the Health Committee did not expect that there was to be no replacement service, despite the tender process initially beginning last year. Nexus has been supporting over 7,000 individuals, with 400 people in ongoing therapy and almost 800 on waiting lists, but we were told that, as of last Thursday at 5.00 pm, the service could not take on any more new referrals. That means 175 new referrals per month. At a time when we are supposed to be tackling violence against women and girls across all Departments here, what kind of message does that send?

The prevalence of sexual violence in our community stands at one in four women, one in eight men and one in six children having experienced it. Those referrals now have nowhere to go except to the GP general mental health service. That is not to say that there will not be specialist training and counselling there, but it is not simply about saving money, it is about offsetting the burden. It will be displaced from one service and simply placed on to another. We need to ensure that, if we are serious about tackling violence against women and girls, we work as one. It is not just about a financial question of saving pennies but, in the long term, spending pounds. It is an ethical and moral question, and we have an obligation to the public to ensure that we end violence against women and girls in all forms and say that, where women and children are still at risk, we will stand by them and have the necessary support for them.

Gary Middleton (DUP, Foyle)

I rise to speak about an issue that, unfortunately, arose once again in my constituency last night when arsonists attacked the former Faughan Valley High School site. Unfortunately, 50 fire crew, several water-pumping appliances and a command unit were required to deal with the situation.

The issue is serious because somebody could have lost their life, but there is a wider issue regarding dealing with derelict properties, particularly those such as the old Faughan Valley site. Last night, residents close to that site were, unfortunately, told to keep their windows shut and stay in their property whilst fire crews dealt with the situation. Had there been an incident anywhere else in the city, the fire crews, which are already stretched, would have struggled to deal with it.

Derelict properties blight all our communities. There is serious frustration, particularly among residents who live near to those properties, with the speed at which these issues can be dealt with. The Faughan Valley site has been sitting vacant for well over a decade, yet we are seeing no progress. Over the next number of weeks, I will encourage not only all those public bodies to show leadership in dealing with derelict properties but investors, including private investors, to come forward with ideas to improve our communities.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I rise this afternoon as the Sinn Féin Member elected in south Derry to stand in solidarity with and in full support of the family of Sean Brown. Sean Brown was a proud Gael who was murdered outside the gate of his club, Bellaghy Wolfe Tones Gaelic Athletic Club (GAC), in May 1997. Since then, his family have shown absolutely incredible strength and dignity in their fight to get truth and justice following his cruel murder. Indeed, the people of south Derry, those across Ireland and particularly the GAA fraternity across Ireland stand with them.

The family was dealt another cruel blow this morning when the inquest into Sean's murder had to be stopped, given the amount of redaction that is in the files.

That is another example of the efforts of state agencies to obstruct the process. My party deplores that. We join the family in their call for a public inquiry. We stand in full solidarity with them, as, I am sure, will all the people of Ireland.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I declare an interest as a member of the Northern Ireland Policing Board. Every month, the resources committee is given a list of medical assessments for those officers who are seeking either retirement due to ill health or an injury on duty award. Every month, I respond that I do not have the medical qualifications, expertise or experience to make judgements. I know that I am not the only board member who takes that view; nor, indeed, is it just members of the board. In a relatively recent determination or judgement, Justice Scoffield made clear that the board was not in a position to counteract or countermand decisions of medical experts, yet he also made clear that the board is the final decision maker. Given the tension between those two facts — that the board is the final decision maker but cannot overturn a recommendation that has been brought to it — that position is untenable.

It also seems to me perverse that the board is involved in those processes in the first place, because its raison d'être is to hold the Police Service of Northern Ireland to account — in other words, to be a service scrutiniser — yet, with regard to ill-health retirement and injury on duty, it is a service-delivery board.

I understand that, recently, a group of retired officers have decided to launch a legal case against the board. I will not go into detail for obvious reasons, but they contend that the board is in breach of a statutory duty on the issue. I believe that it rests on whether payments should begin at the date of the medical assessment or the date of retirement.

I have asked for an independent review of the workings of the Northern Ireland Policing Board. I understand that that rests with the Department of Justice. Should it bring on an independent review, I simply request that it looks at whether the assessments of ill-health retirement and injury on duty should not be reverted to the Chief Constable, as is the case, as I understand it, in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

I would like to say a few words on yesterday's day of reflection, organised by Marie Curie, which will now occur on the first Sunday in March in line with the first recommendation of the UK Commission on Covid Commemoration report. I thank Marie Curie for promoting the day, and other local charities like Aware NI for their associated ongoing events. This is our opportunity to remember those who died from whatever cause during the pandemic, and to consider what further steps we need to take on behalf of the 175,000 people who were bereaved during that period. We also need to reflect on the overall sense of loss that we all experienced: the loss of loved ones, rituals and routine. As we do that, we need to remember the time of extreme disruption for us all. We want to show support for those who were bereaved and people who experienced loss in whatever form, and support each other collectively as we continue to reckon with the consequences of that period. I am pleased that Belfast City Council intends to create a COVID memorial wall for those who were bereaved, for those who still suffering from long COVID, and, indeed, as a place where everyone who was affected can reflect.

I would like to mention Brenda Doherty who spoke for the thousands of bereaved families at the minute's silence event in the Great Hall last week. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for facilitating that. She called for a permanent memorial here in Parliament Buildings that would serve as a reminder and tribute to her late mother Ruth Burke and so many others. The Alliance Party very much supports that call. Fundamentally, it would be an opportunity to provide a lasting tribute to those who lost their lives and a lasting reflection on the trauma that we all widely experienced.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

I rise to put on the record my concerns about yet another funding cut by the Department of Health. The cut is to core grant funding that is provided to vital community organisations across Northern Ireland but particularly to those in my constituency. Integrated services for children and young people, which is provided by the Greater Shankill Partnership, gives support to families most in need across north and west Belfast. The programme ensures that children receive the support that they need and that families are given extra resources to help them meet their health inequality needs.

The Department of Health has indicated that the £185,000 that was awarded last year to integrated services has been removed and that the Minister currently cannot confirm that the funding will continue. That is a matter of major concern, not just for the employees of integrated services who are based on the Shankill Road but for the hundreds of families who currently use its services or who are currently on the waiting list to get the support that they need.

The job of the House and of each elected Member is to serve the interests of the most vulnerable in our society. The communities of west Belfast, on both sides of the Shankill Road, need that vital service. I therefore call on the Minister of Health to reinstate the £185,000 funding without delay and to provide the service to my constituents and those across Belfast.

Daniel McCrossan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

I raise important issues facing a number of schools in Omagh. The ongoing delays to the Strule education campus have had an impact on a huge number of children and young people whom I represent in West Tyrone. On Thursday night, I had the privilege of attending an event at which the six schools gathered and the voices of those young people were heard collectively. They made their plea to see the Strule campus delivered. It was originally announced in 2010, with an estimated completion date of 2020. We are now in 2024, and one out of the six schools has been built, and that is Arvalee School. It is a fantastic facility and does great things to support our young people in Omagh, but it is missing the five other schools that should have been surrounding it: Christian Brothers Grammar School; Loreto Grammar School; Omagh Academy Grammar School; Omagh High School; and Sacred Heart College. Those schools have been left in limbo for well over a decade. A proper maintenance programme has not been undertaken for them, and they have not received the same investment as other schools across the North. As a consequence of the delays, generations of young people in my constituency have missed out on opportunities that they were promised and should have been afforded.

I do not want to see any further delays to the Strule education campus. The people of Omagh, its young and its educators deserve to see what they were promised realised and delivered. It is incumbent on the House to ensure that that happens. Omagh has suffered incredibly over the past 25 years, and this was to be a project that would truly bring our young people together on one site that is entirely inclusive and shared. They were to be learning from one another and moving forward together. That was the promise of Strule. I was asked by educators on Thursday night to reinforce their plea to the House to ensure that the Minister of Education will deliver it, that the Minister of Finance will find the money to ensure that it is delivered and that the people of Omagh will not see any further delays to this important project. It is vital for my constituency, but it is long overdue. The costs have gone up, but it is vital and in everyone's interests that it be delivered.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

That brings to a close the time available for Members' statements. We will be taking Members' statements again tomorrow morning, so Members who have missed out on the opportunity to speak today will have the opportunity then.

Assembly Business

Colin McGrath (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Business Committee members received an email on Friday afternoon at 3.00 pm, indicating that there will be no ministerial response to the Opposition motion on Executive reform, which we are about to debate. Given that the motion clearly asks the Executive Office to take action, I ask for your ruling on whether the avoidance of the debate by the First Minister, the deputy First Minister and the junior Ministers, all of whom are present in the Building, is in order.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Where the subject matter of a debate falls within the remit of a Department, there is an expectation that there will be a ministerial response. Ministers are accountable to the Assembly for the activities of their Departments, and I, as Speaker, expect them to regularly attend our proceedings. I am advised, however, that there will be no ministerial response to the debate. The Business Committee was not advised in advance that any Ministers would be unavailable today.

Opposition Business

Matthew O'Toole (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I beg to move

That this Assembly is ashamed of the long suspensions of devolution over the past 10 years; accepts responsibility for the decline in public services that has taken place over that time; apologises to public-sector workers who have experienced pay injustice over the past 10 years; resolves that the functioning of the Assembly and the Executive should never again be subject to the veto of a single party; and calls on the First Minister and deputy First Minister to include a specific commitment to reform of the institutions in the Programme for Government.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members will have five minutes.

Matthew O'Toole (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I am pleased to open the debate on the first Opposition day of the new mandate. Opposition is a natural and healthy part of democratic politics, and we intend to perform that role constructively, as we have thus far.

During the negotiations that led to the creation of the institutions, Senator George Mitchell famously pledged to bring his then newly born son back to Belfast one day to listen to and watch a sitting of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Senator Mitchell said that he hoped:

"we would watch and listen as the members debated the ordinary issues of life in a democratic society: education, healthcare, agriculture, tourism."

Senator Mitchell was able to fulfil his wish in 2012 with his then teenage son, but, when he returned last year for the 25th anniversary of the agreement that he helped to broker and that created the Assembly, there was no Northern Ireland Assembly to observe. For five of the past seven years, there has been no devolved Government in Northern Ireland at all. Today's motions from the SDLP on Opposition day are about preventing that from ever happening again, because, if it does and the institutions collapse again, I am not alone in believing that they will simply never re-emerge.

(Madam Principal Deputy Speaker [Ms Ní Chuilín] in the Chair)

Those of us in politics and the media often focus a lot on the party political impact of one decision or another, asking, "What does that mean for the DUP?", "How might Sinn Féin react to what the DUP does?" and "How will the rest of the parties behave?". Those are legitimate and necessary questions in a democracy, but, when taken to an extreme, a fixation on political stand-offs leads us to the situation where public services and, indeed, the public themselves are of secondary importance. For nearly a decade, party political stand-offs and vetoes have allowed our public services and our public realm to decay and, in some cases, collapse. I scarcely need list the litany of problems that beset our public services, from the worst healthcare waiting lists in western Europe to chronically underfunded childcare to special educational needs at breaking point or beyond. None of these problems were created by Stormont collapse, and none of them will be solved merely by the return of devolved government. However, all of these problems — all of them, along with virtually every other public policy challenge that we face — have been undeniably made worse by the absence of devolved government: the absence of ministerial decisions to decide priorities and allocate budgets accordingly, the absence of a multi-year spending programme to allow health service leaders to recruit doctors and nurses on a long-term basis; and the absence of any funding guarantees until the last minute for large parts of the community and voluntary sector.

Although we are all — at least, the vast majority of us — pleased to see devolved government return, we cannot pretend that public trust in the very idea of this Assembly and Executive has not been profoundly damaged. It has. In a recent survey conducted by Queen's University, only a third of voters thought that the Executive would survive until the end of this mandate. That is an extraordinary statistic. Despite the positivity around the restoration of Stormont, only one in three people think that it will last three years. That statistic should shame all of us in this Chamber. That level of cynicism and distrust is exactly why I asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to pledge to not resign their office before the end of this mandate. That was not a stunt. I was asking a question that most of our citizens want to know the answer to.

Our first motion today begins by expressing shame on behalf of this entire institution for its repeated collapses and the profoundly negative consequences that those have had for ordinary citizens, workers and public services. To be clear, that is not about assigning blame, but it is about acknowledging a collective failure of the political class to deliver stable and sustainable government here. To anybody who thinks that we should simply leave the rules unreformed after nearly a decade of chaos and devolution only functioning for a few years out of that time, I simply ask this: are you serious? Can anyone argue with a straight face that we are fine as we are and should just plough on regardless? As the saying goes, the first step to recovery is admitting that you have a problem.

It is worth unpacking some of that problem. We all know that there are divergent narratives of Irish history, but most of us should be able to agree that, tragically, Northern Ireland has been marked by division between people throughout its existence. There was, of course, division before partition. These institutions were created after nearly 30 years of violent conflict, and that conflict itself came after half a century of one-party rule that excluded one community from virtually all political power. Indeed, at times, that exclusion seemed to be the motivating purpose of the state. That hugely difficult inheritance is why we negotiated a system of power-sharing, of government based on inclusion rather than exclusion. As the party that did so much to shape the Good Friday Agreement, we do not agree with those who think that power-sharing — consociationalism, as it is known among academics — is in itself the root of our problems and our dysfunction. To take such a view is to wilfully ignore history, including the manner in which this jurisdiction was created, as well as ignoring the reality of a post-conflict society.

However, it is possible to reform and change the way that power-sharing works in order to provide a basic guarantee that there will be a government in the first place. Our reform motions today are designed to complement and implement one another. The first motion that I am moving acknowledges the harm done by repeated collapses and then pledges two things. Number one, the principle that no single party should ever again be able to collapse the institutions at will. I do not think that that is unreasonable. Secondly, the Programme for Government should contain a specific commitment to reform. Our second motion, which I will address in more detail when I move it later on today, creates a specific vehicle for producing legislative proposals on reform, namely an Ad Hoc Committee required to produce a report on options for removing the single-party veto by September this year. I am sure that there will be opportunities for us to debate that and for me to answer some of the questions around those proposals during the course of the debate.

Our motions do not prescribe an exact model of reform of the veto, but a number of options have already been publicly advanced. Here, I acknowledge the work of the Alliance Party on this agenda. It has proposed an opt-out model for parties that qualify for one of the top two roles but do not want to take one. The NI Affairs Committee at Westminster proposed a series of related changes, some of which would undercut, although not completely remove, the current veto.

Many of those ideas, such as a move to super-majority voting as opposed to cross-community voting, were based on SDLP proposals.

No one party can or should own reform. By definition, we need to achieve some degree of consensus in order to make it happen. There are multiple routes to reform, but we need to agree today that the first and most urgent change is the removal of the power to collapse the Government, and not make it conditional on other concessions. The protections in the Good Friday Agreement are supposed to build confidence not reinforce mistrust. The purpose of power-sharing is supposed to be positive partnership not negative veto. It has been said in recent days that the heavy lifting on this work needs to be done by Chris Heaton-Harris, the Secretary of State. We strongly disagree. A Tory Secretary of State who is working out his notice will not do this work for us. We need to do it ourselves.

A Member

Will the Member give way?

Matthew O'Toole (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I am not going to give way at the minute, but I will give way later on in my winding-up speech. I will answer any questions then, but I am not going to give way at this stage.

A Tory Secretary of State who is working out his notice will not do the work for us. We need to do it ourselves, starting with these Opposition day motions. Let us remember that the First Minister, the deputy First Minister and the Finance Minister are now engaged in a process of negotiation with the Treasury over the financial settlement. As a constructive Opposition, we have said, "We support the asks you are making". However, let us be real: one of the reasons why the Treasury and the Tory Government have been able to be so cynical in their treatment of these institutions and politicians here has been the repeated cycle of collapse. In order to build credibility, not just with the public but with the UK Government and others to reinforce our ability to negotiate, we need sustainable political institutions not ones that collapse so routinely.

As I said, a Tory Secretary of State who is working out his notice will not do this work for us: we need to do it ourselves, starting with these Opposition day motions. Let us protect —.

A Member

Will the Member give way?

Matthew O'Toole (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I will give way in my winding-up speech. I am happy to give way then to anyone who does not get in at this stage.

Let us protect the best of the Agreement and reform the veto that is undermining trust in the rest of it. The photo ops and positive vibes of the past month have been welcome, but we have seen this movie before, and rather than wait for the nasty plot turn and not-so-shock ending, let us change the script. Let us never again plunge our public services and our people into the vortex of no Government and no hope.

I commend the Opposition motion to the Assembly.

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Today's motion refers to "the past 10 years" and:

"the decline in public services that have taken place over that time".

Indeed, our public services and the workers who sustain them are part of the bedrock of our society, along with our people, communities and local economies. Ensuring that they can operate on a sustainable footing to address need and, importantly, drive aspiration is essential. Therefore, in doing so, addressing the underlying root causes that impact our public services is critical, particularly when you look at the events of the past decade.

What I find bizarre in the motion is that, while it mentions the impact on our public services and the cause and effects of that, there is no mention of the British Tory Government and their regressive policies. When we look back over the past 10-plus years, we have witnessed a number of societal shocks: the impact of the financial crash, Cameron and Osborne's Tory austerity policies, Brexit, COVID, global events and the cost-of-profit crisis. When you look at all those shocks, some of which were deliberate policy and political choices, you see the impact that they have on driving poverty and inequality and how their effects disproportionately impact on certain sections of our population: our women and children, those with disabilities, our working class, our minority ethnic communities and, indeed, our older people.

The Tory's chosen policy of austerity has had, and is having, a devastating impact on public services. Countless pieces of research have shown the impact of savage Tory cuts on public services and their ability to respond, not just here but all across England, Scotland and Wales. Billions of pounds have been stripped from public services since 2010, which has had deadly impacts and consequences. Research has shown that Tory austerity policies since 2010 were the main cause of the decline in the rate at which life expectancy has increased. A further review showed the impact of Tory austerity on our health system: it is causing increased poverty, unemployment and homelessness and, as a result, putting considerable strain on our health service and its ability to respond. That has been exacerbated by Brexit and the loss of essential European funding, which targeted those most in need. Today, in this Building, the Equality Coalition is showcasing the need for an anti-poverty strategy, due to the impacts that are being felt here. That is backed by the women's movement and the wider community and voluntary sector, which see the impacts of Tory cuts.

The Executive have protected people by mitigating the worst excesses of Tory cuts. Challenging those cuts must remain our priority. We need appropriate funds to address that need, particularly as we are, as was stated, in a post-conflict society. That commitment was given by all Executive parties and the Opposition on 4 February in a joint letter to the British Treasury, which was signed by Sinn Féin, the DUP, Alliance, the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP. It called on the need to make immediate and durable changes to our funding arrangements; to deliver on public-sector pay; to deliver a fiscal framework; and, importantly, to plan for fiscal sustainability. If we are seriously to address the underlying root causes of inequality and develop world-class sustainable public services, we all must work collectively to address the funding shortfall, challenge austerity and transform our public services to meet the needs of our workers, families and communities. That is what the public really want us to be doing here today and in the days ahead, and that is where our focus is and will remain.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Happy Opposition day to all Members across the House. Given the immediate media attention that there has been on the topic, we should define what the Opposition is: it is the party that lost the election. The SDLP has a significant record in that regard: it has gone from being the largest nationalist party in this place to the second largest. Given recent polling regarding the Alliance Party, perhaps the SDLP is now the third largest nationalist party in the Chamber.

For weeks and months, Mr O'Toole was clinging to the title of leader of the official Opposition, at the whim of whether the Ulster Unionists or Alliance would take it. They chose not to, so that duty and responsibility lie with Mr O'Toole. I thought that we were told that we were to have a constructive Opposition: one that relished the opportunity to hold the Government to account on the bread-and-butter issues. Do we now see the real political priorities of the SDLP? There is no motion from the SDLP health spokesperson, Mr McGrath, on waiting lists and constructive suggestions for how to bring them down. There is no motion from the SDLP education spokesperson, Ms Hunter, on much-needed capital investment for new schools or on special educational needs funding challenges. There is no motion from the Public Accounts Committee Chairman, Mr McCrossan, on the huge concerns in the Northern Ireland Audit Office report.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Will the Member give way?

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I think that we will hear plenty from the official Opposition shortly.

Finally, there is no motion from Mr O'Toole, the Chair of the Finance Committee, on the Budget. Given that a UK Budget will be set out later this week, surely a motion outlining those concerns would be the people's priority, rather than petty point-scoring from the official Opposition. Instead, we have a motion on proposed changes to the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement from the party of super-majorities, rather than of accommodation. Is that the real party of John Hume? That question needs to be asked.

Turning to the issue of reform, we do not deny that the challenges to the stability of the institutions and the length of time that the Executive and Assembly have not fully functioned over the past 25 years are regrettable. However, we cannot lose sight of the fact that we live in a contested space, emerging from decades of terrorism. Success is not always guaranteed in that regard. This is a reminder of the need to preserve rather than destroy the delicate balance of community relations that is interwoven into strand one of the agreement.

Issues of instability, regardless of from which political party or community they may come, can often be complex, as has been seen in recent times. Let us look at the most recent issue of instability. We had arrangements foisted upon the people of Northern Ireland that not one democratically elected unionist could support — not one. If we had a similar situation arise whereby, for example, nationalism had an issue, would that likely lead to a similar outcome? The SDLP MP Claire Hanna was on record as saying that, in such circumstances —

Matthew O'Toole (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

[Inaudible.]

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

No, it is true. I will speak to the record, actually, to the leader of the Opposition:

“You cannot imagine that people would take that without civil disobedience at a very minimum.”

The inescapable truth is that we live in a contested society.

Gary Middleton (DUP, Foyle)

Will the Member give way?

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Absolutely.

Gary Middleton (DUP, Foyle)

Does the Member accept that although the mandatory coalition that we have to deal with in Northern Ireland is an imperfect system, it is the one that we have to work with? It means compromise and working together on issues.

A Member

[Interruption.]

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Member has an extra minute.

Will Members stop shouting from a sedentary position, please?

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for his intervention. That leads me to my next point, which is that the inescapable truth is that we live —.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Will the Member give way?

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I will have to continue to get through.

We live in a contested place. The best way to defend the institutions from collapse is ultimately to ensure that we talk about issues that affect everyday working families, our front-line workers and our schoolchildren, as well as how to protect the most vulnerable in society. That is where the Programme for Government priorities should be. It is not by coincidence but by design that the mechanisms for review are not only built into strand one but rest outside the Executive. That reflects the real need to ensure that all Members and parties have a stake in and the space to give attention to them.

Consensus politics is the only way in which we can stave off instability. The political arrangements in Northern Ireland must be capable of commanding the broad support of all traditions across our Province. The motion before the House simply implies that devolution could still operate and succeed outside those parameters. That is fanciful to say the least. Cross-community consent has been essential to achieving progress in the Province, and it should be viewed as the solution not the problem.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Member's time is up.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Unlike the previous Member to speak, we, in the Alliance Party, are delighted that this is the first topic chosen for debate on Opposition day, as it reflects an Alliance Party policy and priority of long-standing. We will, of course, support the motion. I welcome the Opposition to this discussion. To emphasise just how long-standing our party's position on meaningful reform is, I have here a document called 'Agenda for Democracy' that we, in the Alliance Party, published 20 years ago today. It is remarkable how prophetic that was, given that it was published even before the St Andrews Agreement. It sought fundamental revisions, not quick fixes. The quick fixes since, as the proposer will agree, have only made things worse.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

Will the Member give way?

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Go ahead.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

Thank you to the Member for helpfully outlining her party's commitment to ensuring the reform of these institutions. Can the Member remind the House, during the collapse from 2017-2020, how many times her party recalled the Assembly to try to move it on and get it back up and running when one party was blocking its return?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Member has an extra minute.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker.

You obviously were not a Member then. The issue at that time was that we were renegotiating to get us back. We called for a recall many times. We took things forward. However, the argument that you had with the UK Government over those two years could not be solved in this Chamber. Shame on you and shame on your party for the impact that that had on our public sector, which has seen a decline. For you to hold the whole country to ransom over your party issue is absolutely shameful. We will feel the effects of that for generations.

Some Members

Hear, hear.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Member to address her comments directly to me? I know that she was a member of the Tory party, unlike me, but will you correct the Member on whether she should address me directly with her comments?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I am going to respond to that point of order. All remarks should be made through the Chair, but we need to accept that this is just the cut and thrust of debate. If you have an issue regarding what I just said, go and see the Speaker, but I encourage Members just to look as if they are talking through the Chair.

[Laughter.]

Go ahead.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I was responding directly to the comments.

Some parts of our 'Agenda for Democracy' document have actually been implemented, including those parts on the reduction in the number of Departments and the devolution of justice. The document is still relevant as it sought an Executive to be founded, like almost any other Government in the democratic world, through negotiation and compromise. Taking into account our particular circumstances, the idea was that any coalition should be able to take office provided that it had the support of a weighted majority in the Assembly, which would ensure that it was inclusive. Twenty years on, that idea's time has come. It would remove a single party's ability to wield an all-destructive veto, which we saw over the past two years, and parties would be entitled to opt out of the Government but not entitled to force others to opt out too.

Weighted majority voting, ensuring not only an inclusive Government but a genuine choice for the electorate, would also enable the abolition of communal designation. Even back in 2004, that was seen as a crude form of institutionalised sectarianism. In 2024, it is entirely inappropriate for the modern, post-agreement Northern Ireland in which we live and in which people are choosing even more often to step beyond the old dividing lines when making choices in schooling, leisure activities and, indeed, the polling booth.

The point is that designations do not just mean that cross-community votes, whether arising from the application of a petition of concern or otherwise, take a crudely sectarian form where other votes are deemed to count for less, with the result that people opting to vote neither unionist nor nationalist are blatantly discriminated against. It is not right that the electorate who vote for the Alliance Party are, effectively, disenfranchised on important votes. Those votes also mean that the institutions do not function in a manner befitting the post-agreement electorate.

My party colleagues will come back to much of this, but I want to turn to another issue that we raised in our 2022 manifesto. As in many other policy documents, that has a fundamental recognition that our system of government relies, perhaps too much, on allocating every policy area to a particular Department and too little on a genuine sense of collective interest and collective responsibility. It is on the First Minister and deputy First Minister, and the Executive Office, to look at that because we see far too much silo working in the Assembly and in Departments. What is required, therefore, is recognition from all of us, including those who tabled the motion, that there were flaws in the original agreement and that a review mechanism was built into it that was meant to iron those issues out but rarely did. We need to remove crude sectarian vetoes. That is objectively undeniable, but we also need to ensure that the institutions operate in a way that is befitting of the entire society that they are supposed to represent, and we need to move beyond those silos.

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

I support the motion. I fully understand that it is worded as it is because Members are trying to get the maximum support possible. However, I cannot stand here and give cover to those who caused suspension over five of the past 10 years.

It is important that we say it as it is. We had three years of a boycott by Sinn Féin over a financial issue. Are we better off after that boycott? Are we likely to have another renewable heat incentive (RHI) situation? The reality is that it could be just around the corner. In fact, the rot in our public services set in during those three years. There were then two years of boycott by the DUP over the Northern Ireland protocol. That boycott achieved nothing whatsoever of substance. The Irish Sea border is still there, the European Union still has input into what happens in Northern Ireland, checks of goods arriving into Northern Ireland still take place, and the custom posts are still there. During those two years, our public services crumbled to the extent that some of them cannot be fixed in the short to medium term. We have to be mindful of that. So, no, I will not give cover to those who collapsed these institutions and maintained boycotts, but I promise to work with them, as well as with the Opposition, the Alliance Party, independent Members, the TUV and People Before Profit.

It is the thrust of having a conversation about reform that I support in the motion. Should one party have a veto over devolved government, 25 years after Good Friday Agreement? Absolutely not. The system allowed it, but you have to ask why the system allowed it. The system allowed it because, in 1998, we were trying to stop ourselves from killing each other. That was the focus. We focused on peace and we got peace, but the politics did not fit into place. After the Belfast Agreement, there should have been amendment into the future through collaboration and negotiation. We did not get that, apart from a few scrappy changes that did little to stabilise the Government and keep it from being collapsed at the whim of just one party.

What does reform look like in my mind? Everybody will have a particular view of what reform is, and we could debate every single one of those all day long, but that is not what we are here to do today. I think reform is about negotiation and agreement of an agreed position that takes into account all the political players, including independents, the TUV and People Before Profit, and civic society. All of them have to feed into this, because, remember, it was the people who voted for the 1998 Agreement, and it is the people who need to have a say in what direction we go next. Just because we do not like somebody's point of view does not mean we should exclude them. I will not support exclusion in any shape or form, but it does not look like —

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

Will the Member give way?

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

Yes.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

Does the Member agree that it is not about exclusion, but it is more that those who do not want and are not willing to participate choose to exclude themselves and to opt out? Rather than using the word "exclusion", we might use "self-exclusion", or say that they are opting out of sitting in an Executive.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Member has an extra minute.

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

I am quite comfortable with the word "exclusion". The reason that I say "exclusion" is that there are people in the Chamber who absolutely do not support the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement as it stands. It is important to say that, if we do not listen to those voices — if we try to push them away — we will not get to a full understanding of our society. I am quite happy to stick with the word "exclusion".

What I do not want is another St Andrews Agreement. The St Andrews Agreement was a carve-up between two of the large parties, behind closed doors. It was a quick fix, and it did not work. It has left us in a worse position. The UK and Irish Governments were complicit in that; they just wanted to get this place up and running and nothing more. Quick fixes will not work: pull the thread, and the whole thing could unravel. This is about sitting down, thinking it through for the long term and capturing all the voices that need to be added to the discussion.

We know that the Belfast Agreement had its flaws. It was balancing the unbalanceable, after so much conflict. However, we do not want to fall into the trap of just screaming, "Reform, reform, reform!", without stopping to really think through what reform will mean in the short, medium and long term. I am up for having that discussion and do not think that we should be afraid of it, but that does not mean that I am open to changing every single aspect of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement; it is still the bedrock of government in Northern Ireland. However, I am certainly up for having that discussion. I am willing to talk to anybody inside or outside the Chamber and to those who are in favour and those who are against. Until we get all the views, we will not know the position.

Harry Harvey (DUP, Strangford)

I have listened intently to the points made thus far, particularly by the Opposition, on future reform. It has struck me how little interest or focus seems to have been placed on the principle of consent and how much it would feature in reform as envisaged by the SDLP. I find that concerning, given the importance that the principle of consent has had to politics here for the past 20 years or more. It is no exaggeration to say that politics in Northern Ireland could not function without it.

Cross-community consent has got us to where we are. We should not forget that. It has been essential to political and social progress and should be viewed as a positive influence. Cross-community consent, and what flows from it, is not the problem, but it seems somewhat that the SDLP, in its recent road to Damascus-style conversion into opposition, believes that it is. It appears that the SDLP feels the need to fix something to which John Hume and others from its ranks were so wedded. The reality remains that 80% of us in the Chamber still designate as either nationalist or unionist. My party and Sinn Féin represent the bulk of Members. As such, wider support for both traditions in Northern Ireland remains the dominant force in politics and must be borne in mind if we are to sustain fully functioning institutions representing and delivering for the people who elected us.

The motion raises a valid point about the long-term stability of devolved government. No one can deny that stability was an issue in the past and poses a risk to the House in the future. We must be honest, however, about the root causes of instability. Stability was challenged when the institutions were not functioning for the good of everyone and were not deemed to be representative of all communities. As a party, we have evidenced that we are not afraid of reform of the institutions, where such reform is necessary. Indeed, changes have been made to the petition of concern, for instance, to take into account its impact on Assembly business.

It is incumbent on us all to ensure that government works and is seen to work for everyone in Northern Ireland. We are the guardians of that delicate balance and of the need to ensure that, in a divided society such as ours, everyone is at the table. As has often been said, government works only when it works for all. That theme must therefore be central to our focus on any discussion of future reform. If the plan is simply to diminish the voice or representation of one tradition in order to facilitate or bolster the rise of another, such changes are doomed to fail.

It is good to see the Assembly functioning once again and commanding the ongoing support of unionists and nationalists. It is for us all to put our shoulder to the wheel and make it work for Northern Ireland. That will be achieved through delivery on bread-and-butter issues that matter to the public. Delivery is where our focus should be. Delivery will cement stability and progress. Only then should we advance proposals for reform.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

On 19 October 2021, I stood in this place to lead a debate on a motion on reform. Everyone in the House voted for it. There was no Division, as the House agreed the motion. I stood then, after a period of collapse brought about by Sinn Féin, and I stand here now, talking about reform, after a period of collapse brought about by the DUP. Last time, I talked about a demoralised workforce, about the harm being caused to our services in Northern Ireland, about the harm being caused to carers — an issue that is very close to my heart — and about poverty. The same things are present today. Nothing has changed in the past number of years. We continue to fail the people of Northern Ireland because of the Assembly's persistent collapse.

How can we change that? We can do so by having sustainable government that cannot be collapsed by any party.

The Assembly and Executive Review Committee (AERC) in the previous mandate prioritised reforming designations and the appointment of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. Sadly, there was no real appetite among other parties to take action to remove the power to use their veto. Even after the Alliance motion was passed by the House, with no party voting against the motion, nothing was done to take forward the change needed to create sustainable government. The AERC collected all the information, but nothing was actioned because kicking the can down the road meant that the veto could remain.

We could have mitigated the risk of a single party pulling down the Assembly. We could have delivered change that would have protected the democratic institutions. In fact, I brought it up again at the first Committee for Procedures meeting, and it was confirmed that the legal changes that will be needed to make the reforms will have to be made by the co-guarantors of the Good Friday Agreement: the UK Government and the Irish Government. If we are serious about these institutions, we need to act now to ensure that this does not happen again. We need to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland and step up for future generations to ensure that our hard-fought-for political peace process continues to enable Northern Ireland to reach its full potential. The Good Friday Agreement is a foundation of peace and progress. Our political structures should and will also be involved in that.

Alliance wants to see the removal of designations and to change cross-community voting, because the current system embeds division and creates instability. Why should my vote count differently from that of the rest of you in this Building? Why is my vote not the same as a nationalist or a unionist's vote? Why, in 2024, is my vote still different? Replacing parallel consent with weighted majority voting is an important change to reduce the significance and role of designations. It is in the Good Friday Agreement. Society has changed — it is more diverse and inclusive — but that is not reflected or respected in this House. You are only equal if you are nationalist or unionist. That is unfair, and the time to change is now.

In the 2021 census, we can see that the population is more diverse. Minority ethnic groups have increased in size, and the number of people living here who were born outside the UK and Ireland is up to around one in 15, which is the highest ever recorded. The number of those who are forced to identify as other — there are those of us who prefer to be called United Community — has increased between the 2011 census and the 2021 census. There is no justification for the continuation of the designations system.

Alliance also wants to see change in how the First Minister and deputy First Minister are nominated. We want to update how we nominate the First Minister and deputy First Minister in order to ensure the stability and sustainability of our institutions. We want to update, not wipe out, the 1998 Act, so that, if a party that is eligible to nominate a First Minister does not want to do so, the entitlement can be passed to the next-largest party. A party would be able to refuse the nomination without triggering a veto on Executive formation. That is consistent with the current position on the allocation of the other Executive Ministers under d'Hondt.

We in the Alliance Party are committed to stable and sustainable power-sharing that respects liberal, democratic principles and enables the development of a shared future, but, as stated by Professor Paul Dixon in his written submission to the AERC:

"this process will require 'political skills' and pragmatism in order to achieve a compromise that is deliverable and sustainable across the political parties."

I would love it if the motion had built into it that, if it passed, the Speaker could write to the co-guarantors of the Good Friday Agreement — the UK and Irish Governments — confirming that it is the will of the House that the designations system and the definition of cross-community voting be updated so that I am not left out of it again.

We must move forward to ensure an inclusive, fair and sustainable government —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Will the Member bring her remarks to a close?

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

— for Northern Ireland.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

I congratulate the leader of the Opposition on his appointment, and I welcome him to his place here today.

We will not be party to a stunt that uses and abuses people's emotions about a sensitive issue.

"There has to be power-sharing ... they are the fundamentals to which we hold dear".

Those are not my words but those of the leader of the SDLP, Colum Eastwood. In the words of the leader of the SDLP, we must have a power-sharing Executive. Those comments stand in stark contrast to the motion. What has changed? Is this a U-turn policy from the SDLP? Is this the leader of the Opposition auditioning for a higher role in his party? Or is it a fact that the SDLP have been placed in opposition by the people of Northern Ireland?

Of course, there is no mention in the motion, or in the contributions made by SDLP Members so far, of the collapse of the institutions that his party presided over following the Belfast Agreement. There have been no comments whatsoever, but simply criticism of the Executive — an Executive that, for the past number of years, the SDLP —.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

Of course.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Do you agree with me that stop-start politics has been very damaging to public service delivery in Northern Ireland over the past 25 years and that we have to do something to change that?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Member has an extra minute.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

I agree with the Member that the politics of domination have been very damaging for relations in Northern Ireland. I agree with her that Northern Ireland only moves forward when all communities move forward together. The lesson of the past three years should be that the concerns of a major section of our society cannot be simply ignored and papered over. The only way in which we all move forward —.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

Will the Member give way?

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

I will happily give way.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

Does the Member accept that the feelings of the people who elected me — I was the first person to be elected to this House at the last election — have been papered over by the DUP? You stayed out of government and you do not accept my votes in this House. How can you marry up what you are saying to the actual facts?

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

The point that I was making to the Member is that the mandate that we were given was not simply just transferred to the DUP; we did not make up our mandate. We were given a mandate by the people of Northern Ireland to take the action that we took. I must remind the Member that it was not my party that brought about the settings and rules by which we operate currently. Her party and others in the Chamber campaigned for the Belfast Agreement, and these are its outworkings. We have managed to improve that through the St Andrews Agreement and other agreements. However, the way in which we operate is a result of the conditions set out before us.

I want to make some progress before I give way to anyone else. We have had two years with the leader of the Opposition in post and not a single policy settlement has been put forward here. He proposes to create a new Committee, to which he will, selflessly, appoint the Chairman. He has been so ready for Opposition in the past two years that his contribution has been to congratulate the Alliance Party's policy. When the provision for Opposition was introduced in the House, we were told that it was a new age for democracy. We were told that people would be held to account. Instead, we have an attempt to use the motion to create another office that they will fill. No meaningful proposals have been put forward here.

The lesson of the past three years must be that Northern Ireland will move forward when all communities move forward together. I encourage the leader of the Opposition, when he next brings a motion, to perhaps make it relevant to the people of Northern Ireland. Then, perhaps, at the next election, he will no longer be in the Opposition.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

I support the motion. I am glad that it has been tabled and that the SDLP is joining the Alliance Party in our calls for reform of the institutions. I say that in all honesty and without sarcasm, because it is important that all parties get on board and not just have discussions and conversations about reform, but actually help to make it happen.

There is an elephant in the room, however, that has not been highlighted today. These institutions are as stable today as they were the day before the last collapse. The reason not just why Sinn Féin and the DUP are lacking in support for reform of the institutions but why others are not fully on board — I appreciate that UUP Members have said that they support the motion but are unsure about the entirety of the conversation — is the issue of power. The reason why people are so reluctant to give up the power of veto is control. If you are refusing to give up that power and to reform the veto over the establishment of these institutions, it is for one reason only: you want to use the threat of bringing down these institutions again.

We need to go beyond that type of politics in this day and age. We need to ensure that we have good governance and a respectful way of debating the issues that we do not all agree on. There is no one in the Chamber who believes that they can get everything that they want at all times. In bringing down the institutions, we see people acting like they should get everything that they want. However, they know that, in any negotiation, the outcome will never be totally on your side. Alliance respects that, and we have been calling for reform since 2004. In June 2022, we published our proposals and put them forward to the UK and Irish Governments, stating that we are willing to have these conversations and to talk about cross-community voting and designations, because, as my colleague has just outlined, the votes of the people who voted for the Alliance Party are not counted in any cross-community vote. We need to ensure that we can move past that, but it is not just about words; it is about action.

The Member who spoke before me — I speak through you, Principal Deputy Speaker — highlighted the Belfast Agreement, which many Members in the Chamber support. I am proud to say that we still support the Belfast Agreement, but, at the time it was published, it contained safeguards so that it could be changed and updated, because time moves on. We all have our political priorities, but we cannot push forward our political priorities without the threat and the shadow in the background of bringing down these institutions.

We wanted the motion to be a bit more specific, and we did attempt to table an amendment. However, perhaps we understand why the SDLP has not been specific, and I understand that the leader of the Opposition will address some more issues in his winding-up speech. I would like to hear from the SDLP if it will also get on board with the Alliance proposals to remove the system of designations, because that is particularly important.

We have already discussed that issue in public. Each and every one of us, when canvassing doors right across Northern Ireland, will have been met with the conversation about reform. We know that people support it and that people can get on board, so I say to the DUP and Sinn Féin: do not be afraid of what reform could mean. I know that you may be afraid of losing your power and control, but it is more important to move this place forward and have an Assembly and Executive that can actually deliver for everyone.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Since this place has returned, we have discussed and debated several issues that are central to people's lives in every part of Northern Ireland. We have promised to work together on childcare, we have pledged to end violence against women and girls and we have called for action on the environmental catastrophe, yet, while debating each of those issues — I agree with the Member for North Belfast — there has been a huge elephant in the room, which is that, at any moment, one of the biggest parties in the Assembly could, once again, exercise a veto on the progress that they claim to support. That nuclear veto, which we are discussing today, and its repeated deployment in the past 10 years has eroded public confidence in our politics, left public services in crisis and forced workers out into the cold to demand fair pay. That is a veto that we should all resolve to remove from our politics for good. After a decade of dysfunction, it is time to change.

As we debate that veto today, those of us in favour of reform should be comforted by the support for the idea of reform. A huge majority of the public get that the veto just has to go. In polling, a majority in every age group gets that it has to go, and that is no surprise. Those people can see all around them the consequences of that and the dysfunction that the veto has incentivised. They see it in the health service collapsing in front of their eyes, in the generation of young people leaving our shores, in their pay packets that have reduced further and further in real terms and in their childcare costs that are just skyrocketing.

While the Government have sat back — or, too often, not sat at all — people have seen how their lives have, in many ways, been collateral damage of the deadlock. They have seen at first hand in their communities how a constant cycle of ransom politics just does not work. They see the same people lose trust and confidence in politics, and it is little wonder. They hear us talking about multi-year budgets, but they know that we are rarely here for multi years. They hear us talk about the Programme for Government, but they know that one has not been agreed since 2011. Their trust in politics has been pushed beyond breaking point on too many occasions to count. Indeed, a member of the public could be forgiven for thinking that such dysfunction actually suits parties that would rather say no than say yes and that are content to feed off tribalism and factionalism instead of standing over a record of government in delivery. The truth is that good government is not built by historic events, and trust is not won through symbolic handshakes. Good government is a process that demands us all to commit to consensus and compromise over years of crafting peace, the same years that simply have not —.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Will the Member give way?

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Yes, of course.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Does the Minister agree that it is both telling and disappointing that —.

A Member

Has she had a promotion?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Does the Member agree that it is both telling and disappointing that not only would neither the First Minister nor deputy First Minister promise not to collapse the institutions again but neither would come here to respond to the debate?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Member has an extra minute.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for his intervention. I suppose that, really, that says it all.

I understand that a veto is a really hard thing to give up, but the two biggest parties have told us that they are about delivery. The single biggest message that the First Minister and deputy First Minister could send, if they are really committed to delivering for people here, is to put down that veto and accept that no one should be able to exercise it again. That would be to act in the spirit of the agreement and our peace process. Without that, how can people believe them this time, when this place has collapsed so easily before? If they do not have that commitment to write it down in the Programme for Government, people will know what conclusion to draw.

Finally, I have heard people say that entering into any process of reform runs contrary to the Good Friday Agreement. I fundamentally disagree with that. I am profoundly grateful for the success of the Good Friday Agreement. I will never take for granted that agreement or the men and women who made it happen. They are the builders and the giants whom we all follow, but the truth is that to review the agreement's outworkings is to fulfil the very spirit of that agreement and stay true to the original intention of those builders. Change was always expected and, indeed, intended. To reform and review is to believe no less strongly in the agreement and peace process. In fact, it is the same agreement as that which provides for reform and expects and demands those who carry out the responsibility of preserving it to ensure that it works for the next generation. That generation deserves stability in its Government and hope for the future. The only way in which to guarantee that hope is to recommit to that agreement and reform the institution so that no one can ever pull it down again.

Kate Nicholl (Alliance, Belfast South)

When I was elected as an MLA, my first act in the Chamber was to sign the register and designate as United Community. It has always been strange to me that we were lumped into the Other group: we are not other; we are so much more than that. Then, I took my seat, and we tried to elect a Speaker. We could not. The cross-community votes of my cross-community party did not count in that. I spent the next two years being an MLA but being unable to legislate because one party has the power to bring everything down. My experience as an MLA has been severely hindered by flaws in the system. We need to change that.

I welcome the motion. It is important that we have this discussion today. I will focus my comments specifically on designation, which I would have liked to see referenced in the motion. The urgent need to change it is a case that Alliance has been making for many years. The Good Friday Agreement is precious, but it was designed to be a living document; to be the beginning rather than the end of a process. Not to move forward and not to change is dangerous and damaging to the vision of the Good Friday Agreement. Society has changed dramatically since 1998. The number of Alliance MLAs on these Benches is testament to that. We are all given the label of "Other", but we are many things. I am Zimbabwean, my mother is South African, my father is Irish, and my children have Irish and British passports; I have them. Our identities are complex, and they should not be barriers to be overcome. They are the stuff of pluralism and vibrancy, and they are something to celebrate and respect. The process of designation, when MLAs sign into the Assembly, is unnecessary. It embeds division and is part of what makes our institutions so unstable.

When we are asked in the Chamber to vote on a cross-community basis, our votes, on these Benches, are treated differently. My colleague Kellie Armstrong is particularly passionate about that and far more articulate on the subject than I am. Not to have the same weight on a range of votes — including on the election of a Speaker, changes to Standing Orders, and approvals to the Budget — is quite frankly untenable and demeaning to me and my colleagues. As Kellie pointed out, if that was the case in any other area or aspect of someone's identity, it would be discrimination. Our society has changed, and our institutions must reflect that.

The values of mutual respect, equality and partnership are infused in the Good Friday Agreement, and they should remain the driving forces of our politics. To fulfil those values, however, we cannot stand still. We must modify and update the functions of these institutions. Cross-community voting continues to treat cross-community parties as less than those who are nationalist or unionist. The continued use of designation is no longer tenable, and it has been untenable for some time.

Matthew O'Toole (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I thank the Member for giving way. I agree with her, and I will talk in my winding-up speech about designation being something that we need to have a conversation about. Does she agree, though, that in the short term, given that there are things as well as designation, such as how North/South and east-west works, we should give urgent priority to removing the veto? It would be very good to get rid of that quickly. Some of those other things will take a little bit longer.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Member has an extra minute.

Kate Nicholl (Alliance, Belfast South)

I thank the leader of the Opposition. On the Alliance Party website, there is a document with proposals for reform, which we published in June 2022. It details our short- and medium-term changes in the line of reform. It is something that we feel very passionate about, and it should not be something that we just talk about. We have laid out how we would achieve it. Yes, I absolutely agree that there are different areas to focus on, and we should discuss how those should progress.

The final point that I want to make is that Members from the DUP said that we should be discussing things that are relevant to Northern Ireland. I think that this is so relevant: the fact that we have had no Assembly; that we can just collapse it and have no Ministers in place to make local decisions for local people or to look at budgets or have no Committees scrutinising and able to ask questions. The impact that it has is huge, and that is not just on delivery. It has a psychological impact as well. People see a failed Assembly, and they feel like this place has failed, but it has not. This is a brilliant place to live. Our people are brilliant, and there are wonderful opportunities. We are talented and creative, and we should be celebrating everything that is good. The ability to collapse everything — the failure within the structure — needs to be addressed and is very relevant to the House. We will support the motion and will continue, as the Alliance Party, to do everything that we can to progress reform.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Since I first came to the House, I have repeatedly pointed out the unworkability of mandatory coalition. Every time I did, the most ardent defenders of Belfast Agreement devolution were from the SDLP. It was the holy grail; it could not be touched; it was perfect; it was the ideal for us all. Those who dared to question it were some sort of outcast from the past. Yet here we are today and, lo and behold, the SDLP calls for change. Mind you, the motivation is very suspect, because, so long as the mechanisms of mandatory coalition were about protecting the interests of nationalism as the minority, those mechanisms were, indeed, the holy grail. However, the moment that nationalism is in the ascendancy in the House and it might be unionists who need whatever protection there is, forget about it. The call has been, "Let's have reform. Let's have change". The motivation is very suspect indeed.

We heard from Mr O'Toole about his worry that the institutions might collapse again. Mr O'Toole, do not worry about those in the DUP leadership. They have been captured. They are now protocol implementers and acceptors of the Irish Sea border and of the fact that we are governed by foreign laws that we do not make and cannot change. Do not get too concerned about whether the DUP will ever rediscover its principles. Under the current leadership, you can rest assured that there is no chance of that.

You might, if it bothered you, be more worried about Sinn Féin because, for its leadership, it is not about making Northern Ireland work. It is about having a stepping stone and getting within touching distance of its goal. It is quite clear from some recent Sinn Féin declarations that, as soon as it arrives there, Stormont is over — it is gone.

I reassure you, Mr O'Toole, that, from my knowledge of what I observe from these Benches, in the main, the happy band of the DUP will not rediscover its principles or pull down the protocol-implementing institutions. My goodness, you have only to look at the glee and delight of the deputy First Minister as she troops around the publicity stunts with the First Minister as her unelected lady-in-waiting. Be assured that the DUP, having enthroned Sinn Féin, is very unlikely to return to the principles that, rightly, took it out of the House two years ago and the dispensing of which, shamefully, brought it back in a month ago.

I fear that your concerns in that regard are misplaced, Mr O'Toole, but if you have any concerns about when Sinn Féin reach the point of saying, "Mission accomplished" and therefore the end of any role for this institution — you probably do not have such concerns and nor does your sister nationalist party, Alliance — you probably have reason for them. You probably do not, however, because you are all, of course, on the same trajectory with the protocol and its implementers.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

It is fitting that the Executive parties and the former Executive parties start by offering public-sector workers an apology for cutting their pay for over two decades. All those who have been in government at some point — that is, Sinn Féin, the DUP, Alliance, the UUP and the SDLP — should be sorry for the destruction of our public services, which have been underfunded, understaffed and under-resourced by successive Administrations.

When I was younger, my ma told me that if you are sorry for something, you do not do it again. It means that you have learned a lesson from the past and are ready to do better in the future. Four weeks into the new Assembly, the Administration are set to do the same disastrous deeds all over again and again.

If parties were truly sorry for cutting public-sector pay, the first thing that they would do would be to give public-sector workers a real pay rise. Instead, the Assembly ran through a Budget Bill that guarantees those workers only a 5% rise, which is a cut in real terms, considering the rate of inflation. That is not to mention the spate of budget cuts and attacks on public services that will come down the line. Whatever today's outcome, we need to be clear that, if Executive parties do not begin to address those issues, they are not sorry at all for the harm that is being done to our communities and services. Like many previous motions in the Assembly, this one will simply be for the optics. They are ruling by fooling once more.

People Before Profit was one of the strongest and most vocal critics of the DUP's boycott of the Assembly, which was self-serving and wrought untold misery on people across the North. However, today's motion about reform of the Assembly fails to address the real elephant in the room: that these institutions, built and run on the basis of communal designation and division, will always be prone to instability. When the Good Friday Agreement was signed, a critical minority warned that it would effectively institutionalise sectarianism, and that is exactly what has happened. The DUP, when it collapsed the Assembly, was simply exercising its veto on power-sharing as enshrined in Stormont's sectarian institutions.

People Before Profit attempted to amend today's motion by calling for the doing away with of communal designations and the removal of the sectarian mechanisms that allow for day-to-day vetoes of Stormont's business. As we see it, the communal veto is not just about collapsing the Assembly but is a sectarian mechanism that has been used to deny democratic rights time and time again. We have seen it used under the guise of the petition of concern to thwart things like same-sex marriage, reproductive rights and Irish-language legislation. It is to the eternal shame of the Assembly that the Tories, under pressure from popular mass movements, were forced to legislate for those demands where Stormont had failed.

A system that mandates parties to designate as unionist, nationalist or other assumes that there are and always will be separate communities here and that those communities should elect the leaders to represent their supposedly separate interests. I am not an other. I am a socialist, and I was elected on that ticket. It is a disgrace to the House that me and others are designated offensively as "other". Not only does that approach copper-fasten sectarianism outside these institutions but it is based on an illusion. While the unionist and nationalist establishment parties here seem opposed in principle, they are always united when it comes to cutting workers' pay, impoverishing our communities and stoking communal segregation.

Even if the motion passes, it will not begin to cure the sectarian rot at the heart of the Northern state. The cure lies in working-class unity. It is that unity, seen amongst striking public-sector workers, that forced the Assembly back to business. It is that unity that will uplift our communities. It is that unity that will overcome communal division as people — Catholic, Protestant, none, migrant — finally stand up to Stormont together. The contrived unity on offer in the motion will not cut it, because it is an attempt at unity imposed from above. Real unity and real change will either come from outside these institutions or not at all. Working-class communities must start by opposing the pay cut offered to public-sector workers and the punishing revenue-raising measures that the Executive want to impose.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I call Matthew O'Toole to wind on the motion. Matthew, you have 10 minutes. If you take an intervention, you will not be given any extra time.

Matthew O'Toole (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

Thank you very much for that warning, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

First, I thank all the Members who have participated in the debate. It was a wide-ranging debate, and I will touch on as many key points as I can. People will not be surprised by anything they heard from any side of the Chamber. I welcome the fact that at least two parties support what we are trying to do. I am not entirely clear where Sinn Féin is on it, and I am clear where the DUP is. I will attempt to address some of the points that were raised. I am genuinely disappointed that the First Minister and deputy First Minister are not here to respond. Indeed, there is no Minister here to respond to the debate. I think that that is an insult to the Chamber, bluntly. It is suboptimal at best, and I do not think that it reflects the seriousness of the issue or the gravity with which the people of Northern Ireland view it.

We are clear that the purpose of today's motion is not about assigning blame or having a fight over what happened in the past, but, since Members raised issues that happened in the past, I will touch on a couple of those, purely to draw reflections on them. Our motions today are about positive, constructive momentum behind reforming the institutions, not to remove the pluralist or power-sharing principles behind them but to allow us to simply have a Government. What is so unacceptable about that? Why is veto necessary? Why is it necessary for people to have their identity protected to abolish — to be able to take away — not just the principle of government but the operation of government?

I will go through a few of the comments that were made in the debate. Deirdre Hargey seemed to be in sympathy with some of the motion but focused on the regressive austerity imposed by the Tory Government. That is exactly right, and Deirdre would know, because she was Communities Minister and had to deal with a lot of that when she was in office, but what about the three years before that when there was no Communities Minister to deal with the aggressive austerity being foisted on the people of the North by a Tory Government and an austerity-obsessed Westminster? One cannot, on the one hand, argue that aggressive austerity from Tory Ministers has left our communities in a terrible place and then, on the other hand, say that we need to retain the right to collapse government and give them the power to do what they like. The power that we have at a devolved level is limited, both because of the mandatory coalition system and because Westminster holds all the power. Deirdre, her party and I agree that we need to change that in the long term and that we need a new constitutional set-up, but, while we have the one that we have at the minute, it is not defensible for us simply to say, "Well, we should be able to collapse the institutions".

Jonathan Buckley's former party leader — I do not know whether he was involved in the defenestration of that particular former party leader — famously said:

"It is good to have a bit of fun in the Assembly." — [Official Report (Hansard), Bound Volume 130, p148, col 1].

That is what Jonny was doing when he made a series of bizarre claims that John Hume and Seamus Mallon would not be in sympathy with reform of the institutions. John Hume and Seamus Mallon helped create the institutions, along with David Trimble, John Alderdice, Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness. Yes, the SDLP was intimately and proudly involved in the creation of the institutions. It wanted the institutions to function. It wanted us to be here, to work and to spill our sweat and not our blood. I will therefore take no lessons or preposterous, pathetic slurs from DUP MLAs about what John Hume and Seamus Mallon might have thought about our changing the rules, to be quite honest with you.

Jonny also said that the SDLP was forced into this position by the electorate. I have had to clarify a few times that I am not denying the outcome of the 2022 election. We did not get enough seats to qualify under d'Hondt for a Ministry. Unlike others, and this includes the Member's party, we accept the outcome of elections. We are here in opposition because that is the role that we have after the election. There is no denying that, and there is no cavilling about that from me, and we intend to do it robustly and constructively, no matter what slurs come from different sides of the Chamber.

Paula Bradshaw gave a thoughtful assessment. I am a bit of a geek, although I am not quite geeky enough to have read a 20-year old document. I may pinch a copy of if afterwards, however. I will come on to touching on a couple of other comments made by other Alliance MLAs in order to give some balance.

Doug Beattie is right when he talks about the fact that things were different in 1998. A lot of the institutional issues that we have were created in the context of a society that was emerging from a violent conflict. Before that violent conflict, we had a system of government that was genuinely based on excluding one entire community.

Harry Harvey mentioned the principle of consent. With respect to Mr Harvey, the absurd conflation of consent with perfect consensus has been a hallmark of DUP arguments for the past lock of years, as people say in the countryside. I do not consent permanently to Northern Ireland's being in the UK, nor will you — through the Chair — if there is ever a referendum on a new Ireland, and I hope that there will be consent for its happening. That does not mean that you do not give consent to the institutions that exist to work through democracy. Nor does it mean that everything in the Chamber has to have perfect cross-community consent. It was not designed in that way, and it was never supposed to work in that way. With respect, again, there was a slightly preposterous reference to John Hume, with which I have already dealt.

Kellie Armstrong talked about reform and said that the AERC is kicking the can down the road. That is one reason that we do not accept the idea that the Assembly and Executive Review Committee is the best place in which for the discussion to happen, because it has a record of being — for fans of Charles Dickens — like the famous Court of Chancery case of Jarndyce v Jarndyce, where the court sat for years and never reached a resolution. We need to have a resolution, and we need to have momentum. There are a couple of common threads through the Alliance contributions, and I will address the designation point a little bit later.

The Member for North Belfast Mr Brett called the motion a "stunt". Mr Brett, as always, for a rather new MLA, is a very persuasive and passionate speaker, and, indeed, one who is able to pull off quite remarkably brazen lines like that, given some of what the DUP has pulled over the past number of years. He said that there have been electoral issues for the SDLP. I am tempted to say this: no blank, Sherlock, we know. We are doing our job in opposition, we are proud to be doing it and we are going to keep doing it no matter what slurs come from different parts of the Chamber.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for giving way. Will he agree with me that every single DUP Member who participated in the debate has contradicted the manifesto on which they stood for election to the House? On page 41, it states:

"We remain convinced that a voluntary coalition represents the best long-term option for Government in Northern Ireland. We believe this should be on the basis of a concise agreed coalition plan that can subsequently be augmented by a more comprehensive Programme for Government and supported by a weighted majority in the Assembly."

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Speech.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Excuse me.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

The DUP has advocated reform.

Matthew O'Toole (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

The Member has been generous —

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

[Interruption.]

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Shh!

Matthew O'Toole (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

— and I think that his point has been made.

Nuala McAllister and Kate Nicholl both touched on the question of designation. The motion does not mention designation because we should prioritise up front. That is why the third motion that we will debate today is focused on the establishment of an Ac Hoc Committee to get consensus and agreement on the question of the removal of the veto. It is really important that we try to keep up the momentum to take that one toxic ingredient out of the mix here. Once we do that, we can do a lot afterwards. That is why this first motion talks about the broader reform of the Programme for Government, which could certainly include designation.

I understand, particularly now that there is increased Alliance representation in the Chamber, some of the frustration around voting. We are up for that debate. It is important to say that I do not agree that designation in 1998 was the root of all evil. We need to be honest about where we were in 1998, but that is not to say that we cannot look at it now. We all have rich identities. For what it is worth, I designate as a nationalist and a social democrat. My party is a proud member of the Party of European Socialists. There is a lot more to me than simply my constitutional view — proud and passionate though I am about it. Our identities are all complex, and we need to recognise that. The binary definition does not apply simply to those who designate as other, although I respect the argument that was made.

I come back to the point that was made again and again, including by Mr Allister, about the SDLP talking about changing the Good Friday Agreement. From the very beginning, we have talked about improving and changing, where necessary, the Good Friday Agreement. What we have been opposed to has been the hacking at the principles of power-sharing, including the St Andrews Agreement —.

A Member

Will the Member give way?

Matthew O'Toole (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I am afraid that I do not have time to give way. I would normally, but I will not get an extra minute, so I will not give way. You will, hopefully, have time to speak in the second debate on reform.

We have been opposed to hacking away at the principles of power-sharing, pluralism and partnership. Of course, Mr Allister has been delighted to hack away at that and object to it. That is fine; that is his outlook, as they say. Although he is a talented polemicist, I do not go along with the somewhat vulgar and faintly misogynistic depictions of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. That is not appropriate.

We have an opportunity today to do something very important, which is to build a consensus around partnership and working together. It is ironic that the constructive Opposition have to encourage the Government to stay together and do a job for the people, but that is where we find ourselves. I very much thank everyone who participated. Let us make this place work. I commend the motion once again to the Assembly.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for bringing his remarks to a close.

Question put.

Some Members

Aye.

Some Members

No.

Question put a second time.

Some Members

Aye.

Some Members

No.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

OK, so —.

Matthew O'Toole (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

Aye.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

OK. I heard you, Matthew. Question Time begins at 2:00 pm. Rather than doing the Division now — it is clear that we need one — we are going to do it directly after the question for urgent oral answer, when the Speaker will do it. Members should take their ease until Question Time at 2:00 pm.

The debate stood suspended.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Oral Answers to Questions — The Executive Office

Andy Allen (UUP, Belfast East)

1. Mr Allen asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline when they expect a Programme for Government to be finalised. (AQO 91/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

We all want to see a truly transformative Programme for Government (PFG) that sets a clear strategic direction for the Executive and enables the type of cross-departmental collaboration and working needed to improve public services and tackle long-standing social, economic and environmental concerns. To achieve that, we are committed to working in partnership across the Executive to deliver an ambitious programme that responds to the challenges we collectively face. We have started to address those challenges already by moving quickly to tackle public-sector pay, starting the work needed to make childcare affordable and seeking to work urgently with the Treasury to put in place a more sustainable financial settlement. While we have not put a specific timetable around that yet, we know that the Assembly would like to see progress quickly. That is shared by the Executive. It is, however, important that the Executive develop a Programme for Government at a sensible pace, take into account all the relevant issues and ensure that our collective priorities are considered alongside an incredibly challenging financial and operational backdrop.

Andy Allen (UUP, Belfast East)

Deputy First Minister, there is no doubt that the over 46,000 people on social housing waiting lists will want to see a transformative and ambitious Programme for Government. To that end, will you commit to pressing for a stand-alone housing outcome in the PFG?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The process is ongoing. The First Minister and I expect proposals to be brought to us shortly. There is, of course, an in-built consultation process, and not just with the Assembly, which is a legislative requirement. However, we also want to get out there and listen to various groups about the issues on the ground. You are absolutely right. We only have to look to our closest neighbours to see the housing crisis there in terms of not just homelessness and social housing but access to affordable housing for families right throughout those places. We are very conscious of that. In order to prevent that from happening here, work needs to commence now. We have already discussed that, and it will be fully taken into account in the PFG process.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I agree with Andy Allen on the need for a stand-alone housing outcome. We all look forward to seeing the Programme for Government. Perhaps the deputy First Minister can give us more details on how the PFG outcomes will be measured.

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Member will be aware that a significant amount of work and consultation went into the previous draft Programme for Government. That included a consultation on a well-being framework and an outcomes-based framework. That is very much the direction that public policy is moving towards. It is about encouraging people to look at cross-departmental collaborative actions that should be focused on the outcomes. What is it that we are trying to achieve? Of course, key to that is the measurement of progress against those outcomes. We have a well-being framework that is live across all section 75 groups and is being monitored. Of course, we will be focused on ensuring the right matrix for an outcomes-based approach to the Programme for Government.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The deputy First Minister will be acutely aware that I am keen to see the economy in the west boosted. Can the Minister confirm whether the Programme for Government will contain any specific economic targets on which sectors are key to Northern Ireland's growth?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Yes, absolutely. As indicated in a number of the public remarks that both the First Minister and I have made, we are keen that we have a strong prosperity agenda for Northern Ireland. That must mean all of Northern Ireland — every part of it. We are very conscious of that. That will be fully integrated in our economic approach, which will be a key mission within the Programme for Government. You are absolutely right: that must be backed up by the right indicators. Of course, we encourage investment in Northern Ireland no matter where it is coming from, and we will listen to the companies that are willing to invest here on where they want to go. However, we have this incredible story to tell about so many of our places throughout Northern Ireland, and we will ensure that, in speaking to businesses, we make clear the huge benefits of many places throughout Northern Ireland.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

I will pick up on the previous debate on the deterioration of our public services over the last number of years in terms of stop-start politics. With regard to your leadership role and that of the First Minister, how are you going to work through areas of Government where we need to stabilise and where we need to transform in the Programme for Government?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

There have been huge challenges in relation to that. It is notable that for quite a number of years — really, since 2015-16 — we have been operating on a single-year Budget instead of a multi-year Budget. That is a product not necessarily of our system but of the spending review process in London. We are dependent on what is happening with the spending review, and we will find ourselves with a single-year Budget again this year because this is the final year of the spending review period.

We absolutely want to move onto a multi-year Budget. That should be aligned with an ambitious Programme for Government, as I have set out. Of course, what we also need is the ability to make that investment in public-service transformation while we continue to provide public services. That has always been a huge challenge because if the choice is to take away from front-line public-service delivery right now in order to do that medium to long-term planning, that is, understandably, a very difficult decision and choice for Ministers.

So, we have made clear to the UK Government that we want to put our finances on a sustainable basis that facilitates both of those key themes of work: delivering good public services right now to the people who need them and being able to absolutely invest in the transformation work that we need to make our public services fit for purpose.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Question 2 has been withdrawn.

John Stewart (UUP, East Antrim)

3. Mr Stewart asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the work of the Northern Ireland Bureau. (AQO 93/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The role of our offices in Washington DC, Brussels and Beijing is to represent and promote the Executive's interests and priorities overseas. As a small, outward-looking economy, that is key to our ambition to building a more prosperous region where our businesses and our citizens can realise their potential.

The bureau works closely with key partners, including Invest NI, Tourism Ireland, local government and the business community in promoting Northern Ireland as a great place to work, live, invest and visit. We have come to enjoy unprecedented access to the key decision makers at the most senior levels at the heart of the world's largest economies. That is welcome. We need to build on that if we are to realise our ambitions. As we look forward, we need to have a clear focus on our priorities for overseas offices and on new opportunities and regions.

John Stewart (UUP, East Antrim)

I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. Also, I congratulate her and wish her all the best.

As she said, there is a great deal of goodwill towards Northern Ireland right now, particularly around the world, in light of the Executive coming back. We have a very skilled and highly able workforce. Is there any more that we can do to promote Northern Ireland on the world stage given our economy ability and unique circumstances? What plans does she have to extend the offering of the Northern Ireland bureau around the world?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Absolutely. We have always been very conscious, in terms of our offices overseas, that we do not work in isolation. We do not work in a silo in terms of just the Executive Office. We work very closely with, for example, Invest NI to identify opportunities and priorities.

Northern Ireland's economy will only grow through that foreign direct investment, support and collaboration, and we are very conscious of that. Very often, our size can be a challenge in terms of economies of scale and cost, but it is also an incredible opportunity because we should be able to get ourselves into a position of being very agile in identifying new and merging opportunities. We have made significant progress with that on, for example, fintech, regtech and our creative industries. That is the type of thing that we need to build on to promote ourselves as a key region that is connected, between Government, business and our universities, and really sell the opportunities of Northern Ireland as a great place for international investment and growth.

Nicola Brogan (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Buíochas leis an Aire fosta.

[Translation: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister also.]

As the deputy First Minister has outlined, the work of the bureau is extremely important to increasing trade, investment, tourist opportunities and employment. Will the deputy First Minister provide an assessment of the bureau's delivery over the past 12 months, le do thoil?

[Translation: please?]

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The work of the bureau has continued over the last 12 months, but we are conscious that a strategy was put in place in 2014. There were some attempts to revise that strategy over subsequent years, but a decision was made to look at a longer-term strategic framework for not just the Executive Office but the Executive and all of the key interests. The First Minister and I are expecting proposals from officials around how to approach that new strategic framework, but we want to work collectively with everyone across the House to make sure that our strategy for international engagement is fit for purpose. That will include an assessment of the work of all three overseas offices over the past 12 months, to identify what has been effective and what we need to build on.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

The First Minister and deputy First Minister will be in Washington DC next week for St Patrick's Day. What benefits do they aim to bring forward and deliver for Northern Ireland during that trip?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Our annual visit to DC around St Patrick's Day offers unprecedented access to key decision makers at a very senior level. Looking across the globe at the opportunities that equivalent countries or regions the size of Northern Ireland get, we see that we have incredible access. We want to maximise that opportunity. We will go to DC with a very positive message — the positive message that we have sought to establish over the first four weeks of our joint leadership of the Executive — that Northern Ireland is up for investment and growth and that we want Northern Ireland to thrive for all our young people and for all places within it.

We are going to DC, and the Member is right that there is a huge amount of goodwill out there. It is our responsibility to make sure that we maximise the opportunity presented by that goodwill in order to bring maximum benefit to everyone in Northern Ireland.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Does the deputy First Minister agree that stop-start Government damages our international reputation and negates our ability to positively sell Northern Ireland? Remember, it is only 12 months since we did not go to Washington, because we had no Government.

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

As I very clearly set out, moving forward, the key thing is to try to build robust, confident, strong and constructive working relationships. I look forward to working with the Member and her party, as the official Opposition, and, indeed, with parties throughout the Assembly to sell a very positive vision. The key thing is to ensure that we avoid instability by working well together. I am confident that we have the ambition to do that across all the parties of the Executive, and I look forward to working constructively with the official Opposition.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

4. Mr Irwin asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline how they plan to continue developing diplomatic links with key international regions. (AQO 94/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Global challenges impact on us locally. Engagement with international partners is vital to deliver for all people here. We have seen significant changes over the 10 years since the first 'Executive's International Relations Strategy' was published and are considering how a future strategy will deliver the Executive's priorities. Part of that will be about building deeper relationships with the key international regions that can help us, whether we build trade and investment links or learn from others and share our experiences. In the past year, we have seen a considerable increase in delegations coming here, and we will build on those links to develop new relationships. Improving our relationship with the EU, its institutions and its member states is an important focus. We will also work closely with the UK and Irish Governments, in their representations overseas, to boost opportunities.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the deputy First Minister for her response and wish her well in her new post, given that she was born and bred in my constituency and has close ties with the family that remains in Newry and Armagh.

Does the deputy First Minister believe that the bureau offices are best located? Is a review of their roles needed?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Going forward, an evaluation of the successes of the strategy over the past number of years will be invaluable. That evaluation will have to be fed into what we build on. We are conscious that, in the US, our office is in DC and that we have an office in Brussels. Those are the key centres of power. We will, of course, continue to assess strategic advantages. That was part and parcel of the 2017 review of the international relations strategy that sought to identify in which regions there is potential for growth and with which regions there is potential for forging closer relationships that will be to the benefit of our businesses and to Northern Ireland. We keep that under active review, and it will very much be a part of the new international relations strategy.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

Given that the deputy First Minister is thinking about changes in the possible locations of the international offices, how will human rights be promoted in those areas? As a liberal democracy, we need to promote that issue too.

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

All engagement is done clearly in the context of our strong position on human rights, including internationally.

Declan Kearney (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Leas-Chéad Aire as ucht a freagraí.

[Translation: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the deputy First Minister for her answers.]

The deputy First Minister referenced the review of the international relations strategy. There is still considerable scope to develop and build on the strategy. Will she identify the new global challenges on which the Executive's international strategy must focus? Will she also advise what innovations she will bring to ensure that our international relations strategy is capable of meeting those challenges and opportunities?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

We are aware of the ever-changing global situation, particularly in geopolitics. There is the war between Ukraine and Russia, and there are areas of instability, including in key trade routes. There are also opportunities, however, such as the growth of the tech industries, including cyber security and regtech, in which we have done very well thus far. There is huge potential for that, along with AI and other technologies and industries in which we have a proven track record. The key will be to work closely with the Department for the Economy and Invest NI to identify which partners offer the best opportunities for investment. We are relatively small, so, of course, we cannot cover everywhere. That is why targeting in line with the Department for the Economy's 10X strategy will be absolutely key. Focusing on a small number of strategic objectives will give us the best opportunity of achieving them to the benefit of Northern Ireland.

Matthew O'Toole (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

5. Mr O'Toole asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether a Programme for Government will be aligned to a multi-year Budget. (AQO 95/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The number of years covered by the Executive's Budget depends on the period covered by the Treasury's spending review. As 2024-25 is the last year of the current spending review, and the Executive's funding beyond that has not yet been confirmed, a multi-year Budget is not possible at this point. The Executive have been clear that public finances here need to be put on a more sustainable basis. To that end, we are committed to working with the UK Government to make sure that we are given the tools that we need. That does not prevent the Executive from planning for the long term. We have already got to work on childcare and public-sector pay, and we will continue to plan for the future while we work to create the stable financial baseline that we know we need.

Matthew O'Toole (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

Thank you, deputy First Minister. Acknowledging that a multi-year Budget will not come from the UK Government yet, is it the Executive's position that there will not be a multi-year Budget allied to a Programme for Government when it is published?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

As the Member is aware, under section 20 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the commitment and requirement of the Executive is for a one-year costed programme. However, we want to place that in the context of a multi-year Programme for Government and a multi-year Budget. That will require some projection forward in the hope of achieving a certain level of spend. To that end, budgetary discussions with the UK Government secured, for example, the so-called fiscal floor of 124%. There is much more to be done on that, but it gives a degree of certainty. As the Member is also aware, some of that additional funding was secured as part of the £3·3 billion package. It is not without its issues, some of which are being worked through by the Finance Minister for clarity about what is or is not contractually committed. We therefore have some certainty that will allow us to plan on a multi-year Budget. Of course, it is fiscally incredibly tight. We need flexibility. We want the ability to invest in transformation. Ideally, we want to weave the initial one-year Budget plan into a multi-year Budget to align fully with a multi-year Programme for Government.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Given that Casement Park costs are now out of control, at £308 million with a derisory 5% GAA contribution, is it fiscally responsible to include it any longer in a Programme for Government, particularly given the high level of need in health and education?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Member will be aware that there is a commitment to the Casement project as part of the multisport programme. There has been no change to that fiscal commitment, and it remains, but we are aware of a huge amount of speculation, which has yet to be confirmed, that costs have increased. There will be an inflationary increase, but it appears that costs have significantly increased. We have not had confirmation of the totality of that cost. When we have that, the Minister for Communities will bring forward advice on the issue, but, at the moment, the commitment in the Programme for Government is to the allocation as set out in the multisport package, which, at that time, included rugby and football.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Will the deputy First Minister outline the measures that will be put in place to prioritise effective delivery of the Programme for Government?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

We are conscious of the fact that many things were achieved in previous Programmes for Government but that there were commitments that were not. In the last number of weeks, the report on the investment strategy for Northern Ireland and capital programmes has come out. That has some very good examples of what has been achieved, not least the Glider and the Titanic centre, which are really good examples of key capital investment in strategic interests. We are also conscious of the fact that other big capital projects were not advanced. That is why the First Minister and I have tasked the head of the Civil Service with bringing forward proposals for an effective delivery-style unit that will sit at the centre of but work across the Executive. That unit would not simply be owned by the First Minister and me in that we would ask for and demand that delivery; it would very much be there to work with all the Ministers in order to make sure that we deliver the strategic priorities of the Programme for Government.

Cheryl Brownlee (DUP, East Antrim)

6. Ms Brownlee asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline what steps they intend to take to improve the application process for the Troubles permanent disablement payment scheme. (AQO 96/22-27)

Stephen Dunne (DUP, North Down)

10. Mr Dunne asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the progress of processing applications to the Troubles permanent disablement payment scheme. (AQO 100/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 6 and 10 together. More than £36 million has been paid to victims since the victims' payments scheme opened for applications on 31 August 2021. We are aware of concerns about the length of time that it is taking applications to reach determination stage. It is important to acknowledge that each application to the scheme is unique, with its own complexities, and that many applications include multiple relevant incidents.

Our Department has provided £5 million of funding to support victims' and survivors' representative groups to facilitate the recruitment of welfare and support officers and of admin support staff who can assist applicants with the application process. Additional funding has also been made available to provide health and well-being support. We are also supporting the retrieval of evidence on behalf of applicants and the Victims' Payments Board. Our officials continue to engage regularly with the Department of Justice and the Victims' Payment Board to consider ways of helping to enhance the delivery of the scheme.

Cheryl Brownlee (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the deputy First Minister and welcome her to her role. Will she provide a timeline for the appointment of the new Victims' Commissioner?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

As the Member is aware, the previous Victims' Commissioner resigned. We are waiting for a submission, which, we understand, should be with us in the next number of weeks, to commence that process. We are very keen for a commissioner to be put in place as quickly as possible. The appointment is regulated by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments for Northern Ireland (OCPANI), and there are therefore a number of requirements that mean that we estimate that the process will probably take about six months. We encourage anybody who may be listening and who feels that they could do the role and do it well to please put their name forward for it. The process will commence, hopefully, very shortly, with the aim of putting a commissioner in place as quickly as possible.

Stephen Dunne (DUP, North Down)

Unfortunately, more than 40 people have died while waiting on a decision on their application. What more can the deputy First Minister do to streamline the process and, ultimately, to get more payments out to those who are eligible?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Victims' Payments Board has so far made determinations on 1,024 applications, 733 of which have been successful and 391 of which have been unsuccessful, so things are moving. As I indicated, £36 million has been distributed. I am sure that many Members are in a similar position in that they have constituents who are now part of the process. Their application is in, and it has been a very difficult and challenging process for them because the application form inevitably requires them to go through an awful lot of their experiences and the impacts that those experiences have had on them. We are conscious of that. We have asked the Department of Finance's business consultancy service to come in and do a review. We have also been working with the Department of Justice, which appointed Capita, to look at the processes to see what we can do to improve them.

We have to remember that, in this process, we are not requiring people to get information and evidence to support their application prior to making the application. We are encouraging people to put their application in, and that is when the process commences. That, inevitably, means that the application process is considerably slower than it would be were we asking for fully supported applications. We have encouraged people to do that for a number of reasons, but we are looking at how we can speed up the application process, knowing that so many victims and survivors are very concerned, are waiting and need that support as quickly as possible.

Kate Nicholl (Alliance, Belfast South)

Congratulations, deputy First Minister, on your appointment. It was lovely to see you and the First Minister at a childcare setting for your first engagement. How will awareness of the scheme and any changes to the application process be raised?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

There has already been a review of the application process. Those changes and the changes to the guidance have been rolled out to support people with their application. I have spoken to victims and survivors who have found it retraumatising to fill out the form and relive all the experiences that they have gone through. The £5 million was spent on organisations, welfare officers and support officers for them to work with people not only on putting the application in but, after that, on the implications for those people of having gone through the process. We know that, for many people, certainty is an important aspect. The nature and complexity of many of the applications means that it is not simple to say that they will take six or 12 weeks. A lot of them take a lot longer because they are historical or, perhaps, some of the records are difficult to obtain.

We have been working with the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland (PRONI) to try to secure a better way of getting access to records. We have been supporting the Department of Health with additional resources to help get medical records and whatnot. There is a whole series of actions. We need to improve communication and speed for families, but it is a very complex and novel scheme.

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

I welcome the information leaflet on the Troubles permanent disablement payment scheme, which has gone to every household in Northern Ireland. However, it is a UK-wide scheme: what are we doing to reach people in Guildford, Hyde Park, Deal and Birmingham?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for his very important question. It was raised in the House of Commons at the time that the scheme had the potential to go wider. However, we made the case that there was no point in the UK Government replicating the scheme. The scheme could be fit for purpose for people no matter where they currently reside. Many soldiers who served in Northern Ireland reside in parts of England, Wales and Scotland and may well be able to apply to the scheme.

Discussions had commenced with the UK Government, asking them for a financial contribution towards the overall cost. At the moment, the cost of the scheme comes from our block grant. To do something like a leaflet drop for the entire UK would have a significant cost associated with it, which would come out of our allocation. We do not think that it is unreasonable that the UK Government should support that drive by making a financial contribution, not only to the scheme but towards the support and welfare of their applicants. Those discussions will continue, and, hopefully, we will have a more collaborative approach moving forward.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

8. Mr Butler asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline what discussions have taken place regarding the development of the Maze/Long Kesh site. (AQO 98/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

We recognise the immense economic, historic and reconciliation potential of the site and look forward to working with the recently appointed board to maximise that potential. We hope to meet the board over the coming weeks. The new board will continue to consider possible approaches to the regeneration of the site and provide us with advice and options for the future.

The Royal Ulster Agricultural Society (RUAS) continues to develop its area of the site, with three further tranches of land transferred under the development agreement. The addition of Logan Hall, the Fold and the Annex have further enhanced the success of Balmoral show. The development corporation has carried out significant repairs and restoration of the World War II-era hangars, which host the wonderful Ulster Aviation Society collection. It continues to prove popular and attracted some 3,000 visitors over the European Heritage Open Day weekend in September 2023. Air Ambulance also operates from the site, taking the very best pre-hospital critical care to the scenes of medical emergencies.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

A very quick question from Mr Butler.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

This is a question that I first asked in 2016 to then First Minister Foster: how long is the Executive Office prepared to land-bank that valuable asset and stall efforts to reap its full potential benefits for Lagan Valley in particular?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Quickly, please, deputy First Minister.

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

We will have discussions about that issue and how we will potentially unlock the site. It is a key strategic site in Lagan Valley, and of course I want to see its potential unlocked. It can be an economic driver not just for Lagan Valley but for the whole of Northern Ireland. We will therefore work to seek a way through the issues on the site in order to unlock the potential for Lagan Valley and Northern Ireland.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

We move on to topical questions.

Matthew O'Toole (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

T1. Mr O'Toole asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister why, on the first Opposition day of the mandate, they failed to respond to the Executive reform motion, given that long-established convention in the Assembly holds that when a motion specifically calls on a Minister or Ministers, that Minister or those Ministers will respond to the debate. (AQT 61/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Member should be aware that his motion pertained to the work of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee (AERC) rather than to that of the Executive Office.

Matthew O'Toole (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I am afraid that I do think that that is a particularly acceptable answer. I will write once again to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister about that.

You have been talking about vital issues such as international relations, victims' payments and economic opportunities. Why, deputy First Minister, will you not commit to staying in your job for the rest of the mandate, given the seriousness of all the issues that you have been discussing for the past half hour?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The best way in which to secure and stabilise the future of our Government here in Northern Ireland is to build constructive working relationships. We work within the framework set down by the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, as amended by the St Andrews Agreement. The work on reform, and on the consideration of reform, is, appropriately, being taken forward by the AERC, and we look forward to reading the Committee's recommendations in detail.

Danny Donnelly (Alliance, East Antrim)

T2. Mr Donnelly asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, after congratulating the deputy First Minister on her new role, for an update on whether the inquiry into mother-and-baby homes in Northern Ireland will include the burial of babies in unmarked graves. (AQT 62/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

That work has been moving forward at pace against the report on the five key recommendations. Work on the key policy decisions to be made in legislation is still at a relatively early stage. I know that many of the people most impacted on by the issue have not yet seen the draft legislation, but that is because it has not yet come up to Ministers. Once it does, we will consider some of the policy questions in the consultation. There are still a number of issues to be resolved, including on what we will go out to consultation, but we want to be able to look at them as comprehensively as possible. Mother-and-baby homes were not part of the Historical Institutional Abuse (HIA) inquiry. If we can, we therefore want to deal comprehensively with that issue through this inquiry and its redress scheme so as to prevent any unnecessary further inquiry into dealing with some of the elements. We will be very conscious of that issue and try to take it into account as fully as we possibly can.

Danny Donnelly (Alliance, East Antrim)

I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. Will she agree with me that moves to resell plots of land throughout cemeteries in Northern Ireland where the babies are buried should not happen? Will she commit to working with residents who are opposed to that?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Absolutely. I am not aware of the detail of what you have said about the potential sale of such land, but there is no doubt that people throughout Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland have been absolutely appalled at some of the revelations about the treatment of those babies and children. It is an incredibly emotive issue for very many people, so it is absolutely right that we address it in every way that we can. Although I do not know the detail of the specific plots of land that the Member talks about, land absolutely should not be sold if there is a question mark over those sites. We will certainly take that issue away, consider it fully and perhaps write to the Member with more details.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

T3. Mr Carroll asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether their office will commit to not meeting and engaging with Israeli state representatives on account of Israel’s actions in Gaza, where some 30,000 people have been slaughtered, with children killed and maimed on a mass scale and people forced to eat animal feed under the hail of American-sent weaponry. (AQT 63/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Member will be aware that I am answering questions from a departmental perspective for the office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, the Executive Office. There will, of course, be party political views on that matter.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

That is a disappointing answer, Minister. Your previous international relations strategy was supposedly committed to peace-building. You cannot be committed to peace-building if you are engaging with a nuclear-armed state that is slaughtering people in Gaza on a mass scale. You have missed an opportunity to say that the House will not endorse the actions of the Israeli state. I call upon you and the First Minister to refuse to engage with that apartheid state.

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I know that many people throughout Northern Ireland will want to see a resolution to the current situation in the Middle East, the hostages released and movements towards peace in that region.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

T4. Mr McAleer asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether they will associate themselves with the apology that was issued by the Executive to the victims of historical institutional abuse, at a time when the Executive were without a First Minister and deputy First Minister. (AQT 64/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The First Minister and I would like to associate ourselves with the apology that was offered to victims and survivors of historical institutional abuse on 11 March 2022. In our role as leaders of the Executive and Ministers in charge of the Executive Office, we said that we are sorry. To the victims and survivors, we say this: we acknowledge the wrong that was done to you, accept responsibility and offer our deepest regrets. We pledge to ensure that systemic abuse never happens again, and we commit to continue supporting you in any way that you deserve.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I thank the deputy First Minister for her response. Does she acknowledge the importance that associating herself with that apology has for the victims?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Absolutely. I want to pay tribute to the incredible work that has been done by the victims and survivors. The Executive Office deals with many people who have been fighting for so long to get recognition, acknowledgement and redress, not just for historical institutional abuse but in respect of mother-and-baby homes and for the victims and survivors of the Troubles. We recognise, absolutely, the incredible journey that they have been on and the fight that they have had to try to get acknowledgement, justice and redress. Our message today, absolutely, is that we are here to support all those victims and survivors. We recognise the hard work that they have put in, and we now want to do everything that we can to support and help them.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

T5. Mrs Dodds asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, in light of the fact that she knows that the deputy First Minister is deeply committed to expanding childcare in Northern Ireland and to delivering a strategy, for her commentary on the fact that, on 23 February, in a response from Dr Caoimhe Archibald, the Minister of Finance, she indicated that the Executive have received £57·2 million of Barnett consequentials for 2024-25, additional to the Northern Ireland Budget, in response to the expansion of childcare in the rest of the United Kingdom, and to state whether she agrees that it would be good to ring-fence that money for the first steps in delivering childcare, standardising preschool and nursery and perhaps extending Sure Start. (AQT 65/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for Upper Bann for her question. It will come as no surprise that I absolutely agree with her. There are consequentials that come from those policy decisions in Westminster. I absolutely believe that, although we are not obliged to ring-fence that money for those particular purposes, we should ring-fence it and spend it. The Member, rightly, pointed out that there are immediate actions that could be taken. We are all conscious that, getting a really good, workable, effective childcare strategy, will require working with stakeholders, really thinking it through and getting the right intervention at the right time to support settings and families. Of course, families are under immense pressure right now. That should mean supporting families and settings with immediate actions while that work continues.

The Member is right to highlight the rationalisation around the 22 hours. I think that the approximate cost of that is £35 million. The First Minister and I have asked for urgent, costed actions to be brought forward on what we can do immediately while that work on substantive strategy is put in place.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for her answer. It is very positive that we have additional funding from the UK Treasury in order to take the first steps in relation to this. Does she also recognise that it is important to support childcare providers in the extension of the childcare strategy?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Absolutely. In my constituency, Lagan Valley, we have already seen the impact of that pressure on settings. No matter what the type of setting — public, private or social enterprise — they are under huge pressure, not least because electricity and heating costs have significantly increased. Of course, childcare workers deserve to have fair remuneration — a fair wage. To that end, it is welcome that there is a pay increase that will shortly come in for those workers. They are some of the lowest paid, despite the importance of the work they do. We also know that that puts additional financial pressure on the settings. We want to meet both objectives. We want childcare workers to be paid well, but we want childcare settings to be sustainable. The Education Minister is urgently looking at this issue and will bring forward some proposals. However, we need to stabilise current provision while we continue to roll out development of the substantive childcare strategy.

Alan Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

T6. Mr Robinson asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline the discussions that have taken place about Shackleton barracks in Ballykelly. (AQT 66/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The development of these sites has been a part of the Executive Office and OFMDFM for some time, and it will play into a discussion around the strategic approach for the sites. We want to maximise the potential, as mentioned, around the Maze/Long Kesh site and other strategic sites. We know that they can be very important in the local area, and we want to work with the local community towards what can be achieved. I was reading about the development of Ebrington and the significant benefit that it has brought to the local area and the local economy. It sets a very good example of what we can achieve if we work with the local council and local stakeholders to maximise the potential of these sites.

Alan Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the deputy First Minister for her response. Does she agree with me that, given that this site was once described as one of the most exciting sites in the north-west, every effort must be made to ensure that it becomes an economic driver for the north-west?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for his question. It would be good to meet with him and perhaps some local stakeholders. As we said to the Committee just last week, we are keen to get out of Belfast and get out and about. I am a Markethill girl, and there is a Tyrone woman, so we are keen to get out. Investment in the Belfast area is vitally important, and we support it, but of course we need to bring prosperity to all parts of Northern Ireland. We are keen to get up and speak to the local stakeholders about what we can do to support them in realising and maximising the potential of that site for the area.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Questions 7 and 8 have been withdrawn.

Pádraig Delargy (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

T9. Mr Delargy asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to state what the Executive plan to do at Ebrington, given that Ebrington has been mentioned, which delighted him, to meet the demand of the people of Derry for more events there and to maximise the potential of that site. (AQT 69/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

We have worked very closely with the site and have made a significant multi-million-pound investment in it. There is lots of exciting opportunity and some exciting events have already taken place. The Member is absolutely right. The overall strategic direction for Ebrington was to transfer that to the local council and for the council to bring forward the events and entertainment scheduled for the site. There have been some difficulties in the last number of years with this, but we want the site to be an economic driver, albeit working with those who have invested and are on the site. We want the site to maximise its potential. Ultimately, the aim is to transfer that site to the local council, but we are happy to work with local stakeholders and the council to see what we can do in the meantime to maximise its potential.

Pádraig Delargy (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for her answer. What will she do to help review the number of events that are in Ebrington and maximise that to drive tourism and the economy in the north-west?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Member will be aware that this is subject to contractual arrangements with those who are now currently resident on the site and have businesses on it. Officials have been working constructively. I understand that there is now going to be an entertainments programme over the course of the summer and the next financial year, and I welcome that.

I understand, however, that it is a restricted programme, due to those discussions. I understand that the relationships are working well and that constructive conversations are happening. Getting the local council, as the body that will eventually take ownership of it, involved in that may well help to develop that local culture and music programme for the entire community.

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

T10. Mr Brooks asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to confirm a date for the establishment of the east-west council that is outlined in the safeguarding the Union Command Paper and to state the positive benefits that it will bring to Northern Ireland. (AQT 70/22-27)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

You have a few seconds, DFM.

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

A date was confirmed for the east-west council. I believe that it is 26 March. That will take place in Belfast, but the details will be released very shortly. We are working closely with the UK Government on the new infrastructure, which provides really exciting opportunities for greater collaboration across and throughout the United Kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions — Health

Cheryl Brownlee (DUP, East Antrim)

1. Ms Brownlee asked the Minister of Health for his assessment of the NHS provision of insulin pumps for people with type 1 diabetes. (AQO 105/22-27)

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

In January 2022, I formally announced the setting up of the regional insulin pump service to mark the 100th anniversary of the use of insulin to treat diabetes. That announcement was supported by £200 million of funding by my Department to enable that life-changing service to be established. The investment makes provision for pump devices and the specialist workforce required to support people living with type 1 diabetes to receive insulin pump therapy.

The aim of the regional insulin pump service is to improve the lives of people living with type 1 diabetes, and it was co-produced with people living with diabetes, clinicians and healthcare professionals across all health and social care trusts, alongside Diabetes UK. Our service goal is to provide equity, reduce variability and enhance outcomes for people living with diabetes across Northern Ireland. Centrally, quality of life is a key consideration in pump decision-making. I am proud to report that Northern Ireland is the first of the regions across these islands to have made quality of life a key criterion.

Following a formal commissioning process, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust was selected to deliver the service. A regional multidisciplinary team delivers the insulin pump pathway, connecting with local health and social care trusts to provide a high-quality service. In year 1, the service has begun a rebalancing exercise across the region. That directly supports the ambition to have equity as our chief priority.

I am pleased to report that, following successful steps to support those experiencing the longest waits, in the context of having an available workforce, the regional insulin pump service will be fully operational from today, Monday 4 March 2024. Without doubt, there is still much work to do, but we have built firm foundations, and, most importantly, work has begun.

Cheryl Brownlee (DUP, East Antrim)

Thank you, Minister, for your response, which I welcome. I understand that the Department of Health recently endorsed the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommendations regarding the hybrid closed-loop system for those with type 1 diabetes. Will you provide an update on the implementation of those recommendations?

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for her query about the closed-loop service. In December 2023, as the Member stated, NICE updated its guidance with recommendations on the use of a hybrid closed-loop system. The guidance provides evidence-based recommendations on hybrid closed-loop systems for managing blood-glucose levels in type 1 diabetes. Subsequently, Department of Health medicines policy branch, which sits within my Chief Medical Officer's group, reviewed that guidance and formally endorsed it as being applicable in Northern Ireland.

In line with NICE guidance and the recommendation, work has been undertaken by my officials to develop an options appraisal. That will allow me to understand the implications of that decision for overall provision, consideration of priority groups, system costs and workforce and communication requirements to enable and support that. The information will inform commissioning arrangements for Northern Ireland and final decision-making on the implementation by my Department. It is worth noting, however, that NHS England developed a five-year phased implementation strategy in response to the guidance. That decision was taken in response to the scale and scope of the recommendation.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Minister, you will recall that, during the previous mandate, I wrote to you and, subsequently, the permanent secretary about the commissioning of Dexcom continuous blood-monitoring devices that have been described to me as revolutionary for people with type 1 diabetes. They work in conjunction with a pump. I have constituents who are entitled to a new pump —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Question, please. You have had your preamble.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

— but cannot avail themselves of it because they do not have the Dexcom device. Can you advise whether the decision to commission these devices in the North will be reconsidered?