Northern Ireland Assembly, 22 September 2025

494 contributions from 60 members. The official report.

Speaker's Business

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Before we begin the first item of business, I have a few announcements to make. I inform Members that the Speaker is unwell, so he will not be in the Chamber today. He hopes to be back tomorrow.

Executive Committee Business

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Assembly Members (Independent Remuneration Board) Bill received Royal Assent on 16 September 2025. It will be known as the Assembly Members (Independent Remuneration Board) Act (Northern Ireland) 2025, and it is chapter 5.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Agriculture Bill received Royal Assent on 16 September 2025. It will be known as the Agriculture Act (Northern Ireland) 2025, and it is chapter 6.

Assembly Business

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I advise Members that Diane Forsythe has been appointed Deputy Chair of the Public Accounts Committee effective from Tuesday 16 September. Congratulations to Diane.

Matter of the Day

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Gerry Carroll has been given leave to make a statement on the British Government's recognition of the Palestinian state that fulfils the criteria that are set out in Standing Order 24. If other Members wish to be called, they should rise in their place and continue to do so. All Members who are called will have up to three minutes to speak on the subject. I remind Members that interventions are not permitted, and I will not take any points of order on this or any other matter until the item of business has finished.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker, for selecting this Matter of the Day, and I send my best wishes to the Speaker.

There is no doubt that the British Government's decision to recognise an independent Palestinian state is a significant and welcome move. We should not forget that the state that had chief responsibility for sponsoring and bringing Israel into existence as a state is Britain itself. Let us not forget that, for over 30 years, prior to the creation of Israel as a state, Britain sponsored the destruction of homes and villages, the mass expulsion of hundreds of thousands of people and eventually the expansion and creation of the apartheid state, which refused to recognise Palestinians, except when trying to take their homes and land and expel them.

This is no doubt a welcome move. However, while symbols can be important in politics and life, Palestinians need a lot more than symbolism today and in the weeks ahead.

The former Israeli ambassador to France warned Emmanuel Macron recently:

"if immediate sanctions are not imposed on Israel, you will end up recognising a cemetery."

That is what is in front of us. That is what is in front of and faces Palestinians.

Yesterday's announcement needs to be followed quite swiftly by action from the British Government. We cannot have a situation whereby we have a fractured, Bantustan-like Palestinian state starved of resources and support. Next door, meanwhile, we have Israel, one of the most heavily armed, militarised states in the world, and Israel being allowed still to exist as an apartheid state, practising ethnic cleansing, implementing genocide and wreaking havoc across the Middle East whilst having a nuclear armoury.

Recognition of a Palestine state cannot be seen as an attempt by the British Government or other Western Governments to absolve themselves from having backed Israel's war to the hilt, which they have done. They backed the efforts to starve Palestinians. They backed the efforts to bomb Palestinians to smithereens. Britain —— maybe this is some of Keir Starmer's thinking — has a legal duty to prevent genocide. The announcement yesterday, whilst important and welcome, will not protect Keir Starmer or others who have backed Israel to the hilt.

In the past 24 hours, there has been a lot of talk of rewarding terrorism and whether that decision is not about rewarding terrorism. Israel has been the key driver of terrorism since 1948 and before, wreaking havoc right across the Middle East. What we need to see now is action from the British Government and the Executive to refuse to give any public money to companies that are involved in making weapons for Israel, to implement sanctions against Israel —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Time is up, Gerry.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

— and to expel all diplomats from these islands.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

There was a Palestinian state in existence before the Balfour declaration and a Palestinian state there before the establishment of an Israeli state. In one sense, the Palestinian people do not need affirmation from the British Government that there is a legitimate Palestinian state. However, all we can hope is that that is a small step towards more concrete actions rather than the British Government attempting to cover their own back for complicity in the genocide that is currently taking place in Gaza and the West Bank.

The British Government should now stop all arms and weapons going to Israel. You cannot claim to be appalled by what is happening in Gaza and, at the same time, supply the bombs and missiles that are being used to blow women and children to pieces. It is time for all countries to come together now and isolate that rogue, genocidal state. We had the report from the UN Commission. We recently heard from the International Association of Genocide Scholars that what is taking place in Gaza is a genocide. We had already heard that from B’Tselem, an Israeli human rights organisation; Jews for Justice for Palestinians; Amnesty International; and Human Rights Watch. We did not need all that. Anyone who looks at the situation there and is honest will say that genocide is taking place.

We need now, all of us in the international community, to bring in a campaign of sanctions and boycott on Israel in the same way that the apartheid regime in South Africa was isolated internationally, and that, eventually, brought an end to that particular egregious regime. I say now to the British Government and the other states that have decided to recognise Palestine, "Don't stop at this point. Let's take action that will save lives. End the genocide. Free Palestine now."

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

Over the weekend, the Prime Minister recognised a state of Palestine. Using the established criteria for the recognition of a state — the Montevideo convention — it failed most if not all of those criteria. It clearly lacks a Government who are capable of exercising authority over their territory; a defined territory; and a settled population. Recognition was supposed to be at a critical point for political negotiations for a long-term solution in the region, but we are nowhere near that, and the recognition will make no beneficial difference. It will not ease the suffering of anyone in Gaza or, on the admission of the Government, feed a single child. It is deeply imbalanced and, incredibly, requires nothing of Hamas or the Palestinian Authority. Most disgracefully, it does not even gain the release of the remaining hostages. It will now be banked by Hamas as justification for the 7 October massacre. It will not advance peace or a lasting solution.

Notwithstanding the political expeditiousness of the decision, as Thomas Hand, the father of one of the female Jewish hostages taken on October 7, said this morning on 'Good Morning Ulster', it could have been used for peace rather than for rewarding terror. The Prime Minister could have used it to gain the release of the remaining hostages, but, rather, the decision rewards terrorism. The Hostages and Missing Families Forum, an organisation that represents relatives of Jewish hostages with British ties, has also condemned the decision, calling it a:

"betrayal of humanity and a move that rewards Hamas while 48 hostages remain in captivity".

That group said in a statement:

"Instead of confronting Hamas, Britain has emboldened it".

Thankfully, someone is happy: Mahmoud Mardawi, a senior Hamas official. He said that it is:

"a victory for Palestinian rights and the justice of our cause"

and would send a clear message to Israel.

In conclusion, I categorically state that the decision by the Labour Government is appalling, but I also reflect that this is a Labour Government to whom the TUV wants to hand complete power and authority in Northern Ireland for the next four years. A sensible move for unionists? Perhaps it is turkeys voting for Christmas.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Thank you to Gerry for bringing the Matter of the Day to the Chamber.

I rise to reflect on the UK's recognition of the Palestinian state, which was accompanied by recognition by Portugal. We expect France to follow today. I appreciate some of the concerns about recognising a state that does not have a functioning Administration. Nevertheless, the president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, on a recent visit to Stormont, correctly described a two-state solution as the only game in town.

Hamas, of course, rejects a two-state solution, and it is important that any recognition should be about promoting and supporting a two-state solution: a safe, democratic Palestine and a safe, democratic Israel. We also have to be clear that the Israeli Government, acting contrary to the wishes of the Israeli people, according to surveys going back many months and contrary to the expressed views of many Israeli military leaders, are continuing a war with the objective of ending any prospect of that outcome. It is our position that both Palestinians and Israelis have the right to self-determination, dignity and statehood; indeed, that should never have been conditional.

Recognition is fundamentally a symbolic act, of course. It is an important one but also one that needs to be followed with consistent resultant action. A two-state solution is also hindered by building illegal settlements, and we also need to see immediate access to humanitarian aid for Gaza, including via the border with Egypt, which is currently under Israeli control. Most of all, we must reflect on our common humanity. The endless cycle of war and violence, including crimes against humanity, will only breed suffering for the current generation and hatred in the next one. The route to peace, as ever, is through dialogue, not violence.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

First of all, I wish the Speaker a speedy recovery, and I wish our many Jewish friends and colleagues a happy Rosh Hashana.

On 21 September, the Prime Minister announced the recognition of the Palestinian state. He did so without preconditions, and his remarks have been severely criticised, not least by our Chief Rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis, who stated that the British Government's recognition was:

"not contingent upon a functioning or democratic Palestinian government, nor even upon the most basic commitment to a peaceful future. It does not require an end to the shameful payment of stipends to the families of terrorists, nor the reform of an education system that teaches children to hate Jews. Astonishingly, it is not even conditional upon the release of the 48 hostages who remain in captivity."

However, the Prime Minister's remarks have been warmly welcomed by none other than Hamas and its fellow travellers, who said that the result was:

"one of the fruits of October 7".

To say that the Prime Minister's decision is a historic error is an understatement. It was a cynical attempt by the leader of the Labour Party to shore up his ever-weakening electoral position. Doing that, whilst ignoring calls from the United States, Germany — it should know — and Italy, which have all stood firm against terrorism, is worse than expediency.

Mr Starmer has now secured his place in history for all the wrong reasons. There were at least 48 reasons to stand firm. Every one of those hostages who is still alive and the families of those who were murdered need to be on the Prime Minister's conscience. His approach is not leadership but appeasement. I had hoped that our Prime Ministers had learned from the hard lessons of history 87 years ago in Munich. The Prime Minister's approach has been recognised not just by Hamas but by every other terrorist group or dictatorship, as showing that, under his leadership, our nation has lost its moral compass.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The British Government's decision to recognise the state of Palestine was long overdue. After months of bombardment, the starvation of the entire population and the deliberate destruction of civilian life, the recognition is not a triumph; it is the bare minimum owed to a people whose very existence is under threat. The Palestinian people are not Hamas; they are families enduring famine, children buried under rubble and parents searching for food and safety. They are a nation, the rights of which have been denied for generations.

Keir Starmer admitted:

"The hope of a two-state solution is fading",

yet only now has he acted. He insists that the recognition is not a reward for terrorism and that all hostages must be released. Those are important points, but they cannot erase the fact that Britain has been painfully slow to respond while civilians have been starved and killed.

Israel's Prime Minister condemned the decision as "absurd" and as "a reward for terrorism", but the real absurdity is the fact that the international community has allowed the humanitarian catastrophe to continue, while warnings from United Nations experts that Israel's actions in Gaza amount to genocide go unheeded, including by the UK Government. Recognition means nothing, if it is not followed by urgent action: an immediate and lasting ceasefire, unrestricted humanitarian aid and accountability for those who violated international law. The world must insist on an end to the illegal occupation and on a future in which Palestinians and Israelis can live in dignity and security. It is not about political gestures; it is about saving lives now.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

The Prime Minister's announcement on Sunday that the United Kingdom now recognises a Palestinian state was and is shameful. Let us remember the context. The genesis of that announcement lies in the events of 7 October 2023.

On that day, the Jewish people suffered the largest massacre since the Holocaust. Civilians were slaughtered. Men, women and children were butchered without regard for age or sex. What is the response of the Government? It is to reward that savagery and hand victory to Hamas.

That decision has nothing to do with peace in the Middle East and everything to do with Labour party politics. It opens the door to a Palestinian embassy in London, with all the privileges. What is most concerning is that it gives diplomatic immunity for officials. Think of the dangers that that brings. What has Hamas given in return? Absolutely nothing; not even the release of Israeli hostages who have now endured over 600 days in captivity — 600 days without even the most basic humanitarian concerns. Of course, that does not trouble the Member who brought the matter before the House. While women were being raped, families torn apart and civilians massacred, what was he doing? Mr Carroll was tweeting, "Victory to the Palestinian Resistance".

Recognition of a Palestinian state is not a step towards peace; it is a betrayal of the only democracy in the Middle East and the people who are on the front line against Islamic extremism. It is a shameful act by a discredited Government whom the people of the UK are waiting eagerly to kick out of office.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

The move by Keir Starmer to recognise the Palestinian state does more damage to a lasting solution in the Middle East than he could ever dream of. His decision was not about finding a lasting solution in the Middle East but about placating the loony left-wing members of his party. It was about that age-old Labour Party tradition of rewarding terrorism and those who engage in violence. Let us be very clear: we have heard remarks in the Chamber about the greatness of recognising the Palestinian state, but no remarks from those very people about the horrendous acts of terrorism by Hamas on 7 October. The truth is that those Members do not want the state of Israel to exist. They do not want our Jewish community across the world to feel respected. My party will never placate or reward terrorists.

On Wednesday evening, I had the privilege of being at the Belfast synagogue, where hundreds of people joined together to raise funds to rebuild the kibbutzim that were bombed and shot at, and where people were raped and taken into captivity. I heard a message from one victim who lost her husband and children on that day. They know that the people of Belfast and Northern Ireland stand with them and not with the terrorists of Hamas.

The decision that the Prime Minister has taken will not advance the cause of finding peace, but will further embolden the terrorists of Hamas to continue to try to destroy the state of Israel. Let me be very clear: my party stands with Israel and its right to defend itself. We will not allow those who continue to justify terrorism to succeed.

Members' Statements

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

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 to make their statement. I remind Members that interventions are not permitted and I will not take any points of order on this or any other matter until the item of business has finished.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

“Scríobhann sí m’ainm orm ionas go mbeifear ábalta mo ghéaga a bhailiú má bhuamálann siad muid.”

Sin na focail a chan cailín óg ó Gaza sa ghearrscannán ‘Soft Skin’. Bhí páistí scoile in Gaza ag caint sa scannán ar an nós atá anois ag máithreacha in Gaza. Scríobhfaidh na máithreacha ainm an pháiste ar lámh nó ar chos an pháiste sula bhfágann an páiste an teach.

"Aoibhinn beatha an scoláire," ach ní in Gaza. Bhí an Lá Idirnáisiúnta chun an tOideachas a Chosaint ar an Ionsaí ann tá coicís ó shin. Bliain is an t-am seo, thug mé óráid uaim ar an ábhar chéanna. Thug mé staitisticí agus fíricí faoi líon na mac léinn, na múinteoirí agus na léachtóirí ar mharaigh fórsaí Iosrael iad. Thug mé cuntas ar na scoileanna agus na hollscoileanna ar scrios fórsaí Iosrael iad. Thug mé le fios go raibh an scrios Iosraelach ar an oideachas chomh holc sin gur cheap na Náisiúin Aontaithe focal dó, mar a bhí: an léinn-díothú.

I ndiaidh dom bheith ag éisteacht le cuid de na hargóintí a rinneadh sa Teach seo le gairid, nuair a chuala mé cuid de na Comhaltaí go fóill ag dul ar leithscéal Iosrael, ag dul ar leithscéal Iosrael as páistí a mharú agus iad ag iarraidh oideachas a fháil agus ag dul ar leithscéal Iosrael as mná a scaoileadh agus iad ag fanacht le bia a fháil, thuig mé faoi dheireadh go bhfuil cuid de na Comhaltaí ar nós cuma liom faoi fhíricí. Féadann Jews for Justice for Palestinians, B’Tselem, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch agus na Náisiúin Aontaithe, féadann siad uilig go léir uafáis Iosrael a chur ar a súile dóibh, agus tabharfaidh na Comhaltaí sin an chluas bhodhar do na fíricí.

Níl ann ach gairm in aghaidh gaoithe do dhuine ar bith a bheith ag trácht ar an 15,000 mac léinn atá anois marbh in Gaza de dheasca ionsaithe Iosrael. Ní dhéanfaidh sé lá difir do na Comhaltaí sin. Déanfaidh siad leithscéal eile d’Iosrael, dá áiféisí.

“Scríobhann sí m’ainm orm ionas go mbeifear ábalta mo ghéaga a bhailiú má bhuamálann siad muid.”

Sin mar atá ag páistí scoile in Gaza de dheasca ionsaithe Iosrael.

"Aoibhinn beatha an scoláire," ach ní in Gaza, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle. Ní in Gaza.

[Translation: “She writes my name on me so that they can collect my limbs if they bomb us.” Those were the words spoken by a young girl from Gaza in the short film ‘Soft Skin’. In the film, schoolchildren in Gaza speak about the custom that mothers in Gaza now have. Mothers will write the child’s name on the child’s arm or leg before the child leaves the house. “Sweet is the scholar’s life,” but not in Gaza. A fortnight ago, we marked the International Day to Protect Education from Attack. This time last year, I gave a speech on the same subject. I gave statistics and facts about the number of students, teachers and lecturers killed by Israeli forces. I gave an account of the schools and universities that Israeli forces have destroyed. I pointed out that the Israeli destruction of education was so bad that the United Nations had coined a word for it: scholasticide. After listening to some of the arguments made in the House recently, when I heard Members still making excuses for Israel, making excuses for Israel killing children trying to get an education and making excuses for Israel shooting women waiting to get food, I finally realised that some Members simply do not care about facts. Jews for Justice for Palestinians, B’Tselem, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the United Nations can all point out Israel’s atrocities, yet those Members will turn a deaf ear to the facts. It is a waste of breath to mention the 15,000 students killed in Gaza as a result of Israeli attacks. It makes not a button of difference to those Members. They will make another excuse for Israel, no matter how absurd. “She writes my name on me so that they can gather my limbs if they bomb us.” That is life for schoolchildren in Gaza as a result of Israeli attacks. “Sweet is the scholar’s life,” but not in Gaza, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Not in Gaza.]

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

The weekend brought yet another dark day for truth and justice in Northern Ireland. For decades, innocent victims have, time and time again, been promised fairness, only to be denied justice. The Belfast Agreement was sold as a new beginning, but, from the outset, justice was corrupted. Victims watched as the gates to prisons were thrown open and saw their pain ignored. Republicans on the run were handed secret letters of comfort from Tony Blair, while the families of their victims were left in torment.

We have seen the shameful spectacle of victim makers being celebrated and eulogised, with our "First Minister for all" telling us that there was no alternative to IRA violence. That is not justice but a betrayal of justice. When others turned their back on them, my party stood up for innocent victims and ensured that there would be a victims' pension for those harmed by terrorists during the Troubles.

Once again, however, victims are being betrayed. We see a new so-called legacy deal with the Irish Government. That is another political stitch-up that has been designed not to deliver truth but to rewrite history. For years, Dublin has failed to cooperate with Omagh bombing investigations and refused to come clean about its collusion with the Provisional IRA. That is a national disgrace. Now, instead of the Labour Party standing up to Dublin and standing with victims, it has outsourced legacy to the Irish Republic. Let me be clear: the Labour Party has no interest in victims. Its record is one of equating victims with victim makers, of announcing one-sided public inquiries and of bending to republican demands, yet some would happily hand over the future of Northern Ireland to that Government.

Let me say this with absolute clarity: the DUP will never support arrangements that bury the truth, elevate terrorists above their victims or condemn the victims of terrorism to the shadows. We will stand firmly with the innocent victims. Be it London, Dublin or anywhere else, this party will continue to call out the rank hypocrisy of those who do down the victims of our past.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Before I call Nuala McAllister, I ask Members to rise in their seat if they wish to make a statement.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

Last week, there was a monumental occasion in Westminster with the introduction of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, which most of us know as the "Hillsborough law". The legislation will introduce an individual duty of candour for all public officials and authorities that will ensure that there is a legal duty on everyone to be open and honest when mistakes are made. We all know that the Bill comes off the back of the campaigning by the Hillsborough families and the wider community, which saw the tragedy of 97 people losing their lives.

I thank Ian Byrne MP, with whom my colleague Sorcha Eastwood and I have worked closely over the past year to ensure that Northern Ireland's voices are not lost in the Hillsborough law. I also thank the campaigners who have fought so tirelessly over the years.

In Northern Ireland, we are all too familiar with institutional cover-ups. In recent years, we have learned of more scandals and cover-ups and a lack of truth and accountability. In my role as a member of the Health Committee and the Policing Board, I have engaged with victims and those with family members who were damaged, injured or lost their life. From Muckamore through to the cervical smear scandal and from the tragedy surrounding the murder of Katie Simpson to the families of Adam Strain, Raychel Ferguson, Claire Roberts and Conor Mitchell — the children who lost their lives due to hyponatraemia — those who have, unfortunately, lived through the consequences of a cover-up are united in their call for greater transparency and accountability from public officials, whether they be health workers, police officers or others.

An individual duty to be open and honest when mistakes are made has consistently been recommended after inquiries in Northern Ireland and the wider UK. I recognise that there is work to be done to get all of the workforce across the entire public sector on board, but we have to be honest about saying that this law does not mean punishment for making a mistake: it means that there should be no cover-ups.

To close, I thank every family that has been impacted by institutional cover-ups, whether it was the Hillsborough disaster, Muckamore or hyponatraemia or whether they were patients of Dr Watt. It has never been more important to work together. You will never walk alone.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

I want to address, in very introductory terms, the legacy agreement reached between the United Kingdom Government and the Government of the Republic of Ireland. So many people were murdered and maimed in our Troubles, and so many more, perhaps too many to quantify, have been affected by mental ill health and other suffering. We owe it to those victims to give any consideration serious and solemn reflection. That is what we in the Ulster Unionist Party will do, but we will have some guiding principles.

First, we will be informed mostly by the victims. Too often in our peace process, the needs of perpetrators have come first and those of victims have come second. Blind eyes were turned to violence for the greater good, if you define the "greater good" as ignoring violence. Blind eyes were turned to punishment shootings so that they did not upset the apple cart of negotiations. That cannot continue, so we will be guided by victims' needs and not by the needs of perpetrators.

Secondly, we will make sure that there is fair treatment for the vast majority of servicemen and police officers who put on a uniform and went out to serve our country with courage and distinction.

Before any proposals have our support, we will ensure that they recognise fairness for our veterans and police officers. Thirdly, we will ensure that history cannot be rewritten. It is the strategic intent of some people, including some in this place, to rewrite history. We will make sure that that does not happen. Fourthly, we will uphold the rule of law and justice in our country.

With those four principles, I will address just one aspect of the legacy agreement, and that is the belated commitment of the Government of the Irish Republic to investigate Troubles-related crimes. Why has it taken until 2025 for them to make a commitment to investigate such crimes? How many people have died who were victims? How many suspects have died who were never brought to justice? How much evidence has been lost?

We will be asking serious questions about the Irish Government and the reported amnesty that was given to republican violence. Michael McDowell confirmed in 'The Irish Times' that he was asked to give that amnesty by leaders of Sinn Féin, and he gave it. We are very concerned that that amnesty may scupper any attempts to bring people to justice.

In relation to the legacy unit in an Garda Síochána, we will make sure that, if it goes ahead, there will be legal requirements for it to give unredacted intelligence to the UK bodies and that there will be independence in that unit too. The call is for independence in the investigatory bodies in Northern Ireland: we want to see independence in any Garda Síochána unit, with someone from Northern Ireland making sure that it is disclosing and cooperating and that the Irish Government are no longer trying —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Time is up, Jon.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

— to keep things secret.

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

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I do not know whether you have ever got a night bus home, and I am not sure whether that is even an appropriate question to ask the Chair. I do not know how, after a night out, people here get themselves home, whether they use taxis or walk, if they are lucky enough to live close enough to where they are going out. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, you and I represent the great city of Belfast, along with others in the Chamber, but everybody in the region has an interest in it, because people from across the North travel into Belfast for nights out and weekends away. On Friday, we had the terrific and triumphant return of Culture Night Belfast to our streets. However, one thing that we have been lacking is safe, secure and reliable public transport home for all those revellers of all ages. There is a serious point, which is particularly about the safety of young people, especially young women. Having the confidence to travel safely is a critical part of being able to enjoy a night out safely. However, unlike other parts of these islands, we have failed historically to give proper options for public transport home for the people of all ages who are socialising in the centre of Belfast.

We now have a thriving nightlife. Mr Brett opposite has worked alongside me and others on building policy support for the brilliant offer that we have. I am pleased to say that Belfast City Council, in conjunction with the Department for Infrastructure, after campaigning by my party, including my colleague Councillor Séamas de Faoite, has moved to a pilot for night buses in Belfast. That is hugely welcome news for people who enjoy the centre of the city and our amazing offer, whether that is theatre, nightlife, pubs, restaurants or amazing one-off events such as Culture Night Belfast on Friday night.

We want people to come and enjoy our terrific city centre. We also want to restore derelict areas, including the Tribeca area. We will be debating that again in the not-too-distant future. Safe, reliable public transport is hugely important. The Belfast night tsar, Michael Stewart, has talked about that. It is a huge driver for our hospitality industry, which is struggling in many ways with additional costs. Unlocking public transport from the city will be really important. A pilot has been agreed in principle, but, now, we need the Infrastructure Minister to step up with the funding. I hope that the Economy Minister and, indeed, others in the Executive will see the huge potential that can arise from greater use of night buses and public transport in general coming out of the city. It is a huge opportunity for our terrific city.

Anybody who was in Belfast on Friday night will have seen the amazing range of things that we had during Culture Night Belfast. There was even wrestling at Grand Central station, which is the biggest transport hub in Ireland. There was all sorts in the train station. There was band music, choirs and an opera singer.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Time is up, Matthew.

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

The only thing that we are missing —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Time is up.

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

— is safe, secure night buses. We are going to keep fighting for those.

Órlaithí Flynn (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I will speak about an extremely important matter regarding women's health and some of the massive misconceptions that still exist among many, many women around smear tests and the detection of ovarian cancer.

The most recent stats show that almost half of the women — a staggering 46% — in the North of Ireland believe, wrongly, that a cervical smear test will detect ovarian cancer. It will not. As a woman who likes to think that she is across looking after her health, I can throw my hands up and admit that, until my first encounter with the Target Ovarian Cancer charity, I did not know that that was the case. I commend that charity for leading the way in creating awareness of the fact that smear tests will only screen for cervical cancer.

Many women have a false sense of reassurance that smear tests will pick up ovarian and cervical cancer. That is costing lives because many women still do not know that that is not the case. There is no routine screening test for ovarian cancer, as there is for cervical cancer. That makes the awareness of its symptoms absolutely critical. If women do not know what symptoms to look for and think that it will be picked up through the normal screening of the smear test, that is dangerous. Target Ovarian Cancer has repeatedly called on the Department of Health to update the public messaging around that. That needs to happen urgently.

In July, NHS England made it clear that cervical screening does not detect ovarian or other gynaecological cancers, and the Health Service Executive in the South is also running a public awareness campaign. Women in the North deserve the same clarity and support, but, up until now, the Department has failed to act.

Ovarian cancer is much more treatable when it is caught early, as is the case for many cancers. Right now, 31% of women in the North who are diagnosed with ovarian cancer will not survive for one year. That must change. We must ensure that women know the symptoms that they need to be looking out for: persistent bloating; abdominal pain; feeling full, quickly; and changes in bowel habits. Awareness saves lives, and early diagnosis will save lives. Too many women here are being diagnosed too late, when their treatment options are limited and outcomes poor. This is about our mothers, daughters, sisters and friends — real people who are facing this deadly disease. Often, diagnosis comes too late, because of the misconceptions around what a smear test can pick up.

Please, spread the message to the women in your family, any woman in your life with whom you are in contact and, particularly, your constituents.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I heard what Nuala McAllister said earlier, and I echo her comments about the Hillsborough law. It was a good day when that law was published. However, I will not leave things to chance or to the Labour Government, or even our own Health Minister. That is why I take the opportunity to raise my consultation on an individual duty of candour that will not only bring openness and transparency to our healthcare settings but will set up a new reporting regime, with independent eyes and greater protection for whistle-blowers.

There is no doubt that the Executive are facing a number of challenges and issues that need to be resolved. Those challenges are extremely difficult, but that is what we are in politics for, is it not? It will be our people who will implement any and all of the Executive's initiatives that come forward now and in the future. If we truly want to make Northern Ireland work, and if we truly want to make it an attractive place to live and work, we have to do more to invest in our people. We have to do that by providing them with opportunities to grow businesses and have that entrepreneurial spirit but also by ensuring that those who go into professions — noble professions — and work for the state to provide services for us, are properly remunerated and valued.

We need to invest in all our people, be that our healthcare staff who look after our elderly and vulnerable, our teachers who encourage our children to learn or our police officers who keep us safe. That is why the DUP wants to see a fair and complementary pay award that is relative to the rest of the UK. Pay parity must be the goal.

I call on the Finance Minister to make that a main priority during his tenure. Let us show the people of Northern Ireland that we value and believe in them and that they are worth it.

What makes this country great is its people. Let us ensure that our people get the remuneration and conditions that they deserve. I ask and plead with the Finance Minister to look at the pay awards for this year. Let us get on with it. Let us remunerate our people for the valuable jobs that they do in providing for all our people, teaching our children, looking after our elderly and keeping us safe.

Ciara Ferguson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Recently, the deputy leader of Britain's Reform party threatened not just the Good Friday Agreement but the democratic mandate of the people of the North of Ireland — how dare he — but it comes as no surprise. Time and again, British political parties have shown complete and utter disregard for the democratic will of the people. We live every day with the consequences of the last time that they ignored us, during the Brexit negotiations. The North did not have a fleeting chance. When the Tories talk about dragging Britain out of the European Convention on Human Rights, they think that that means that they have the automatic right to drag the North with them. Now, Reform's Richard Tice has gone even further by openly declaring his willingness to support such a change, in the full knowledge of it being against the wishes of Irish nationalists.

Let me be crystal clear: any attempt by any British party to use the Good Friday Agreement as a bargaining chip will not fly, nor will threats that indulge a minority section of political unionism whilst holding the majority of our citizens to ransom. The truth is that Irish interests have never been served in Westminster and never will be. That is why more and more people are looking to the real alternative: Irish reunification. That alternative can grow the economy, protect our health service, guarantee rights and restore us automatically to the European Union.

Let me send a message straight back across the water. To those who dismiss our voices, gamble with our rights and ignore our mandate, hear this loud and clear: the Good Friday Agreement will not be undermined; the principle of consent is not up for negotiation; and the constitutional future of the North will be decided only by the people who live on this island. The people here will have their say. Their voice will be heard. That time is imminent.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

This morning, I comment on the fact that the mere suggestion that the husband of Heather Humphreys, the Fine Gael candidate for president, had once been in the Orange Order merits front-page headlines, news reports and wall-to-wall commentary. What a telling insight into the Republic in the 21st century. It is often repeated that Sir James Craig described the old Stormont in Northern Ireland as a Protestant Parliament for a Protestant people. What is less often recalled is that he was responding to Éamon de Valera's saying that the Southern state would be a Catholic state for a Catholic people. One hundred years later, it is plain to see which of those spirits remains alive and well.

The modern Republic boasts of its tolerance. We are told that it is a land where diversity is celebrated and where a homosexual Taoiseach with Indian heritage can lead the country. I dare say that, if Heather Humphreys were black or Muslim, the press would have played that story positively, but a white Protestant with suspected links to the Orange Order? Oh, no, that is beyond the pale. The very fact that it is considered a story says an awful lot about what unionists can expect in a so-called new Ireland. It seems that, for many in the Republic, when it comes to one minority — the Protestant minority — it is all well and good so long as they know their place. Of those in the House who will claim that that is unrepresentative of the Republic I ask why unionism should believe you, when you do not tolerate an Orange march for five minutes a year in a majority nationalist area, yet demand that your culture, through the Irish language, be imposed where it is simply not wanted.

The idea of an agreed Ireland is nothing more than spin for political domination of the unionist community. We must resist the new-Ireland, mythical nonsense coming from Sinn Féin and their friends at every opportunity and expose it for what it is.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I note the closure last Friday of the consultation period on the anti-poverty strategy. Poverty levels continue to rise, and poverty continues to be a real problem here. We are still addressing a lot of cost-of-living issues; we are coming off the back of many long years of Tory austerity; and we are still dealing with the impact and ramifications of partition and how that affects the economy on this island.

It has to be said that the Minister for Communities' draft strategy was met with dismay and rejected by many of the people who work in that sector and know what the problems and the solutions are. It is regrettable that the Minister disengaged from those with real expertise, who had engaged with the previous Minister, Deirdre Hargey, to draw up a substantive draft document.

Moving forward, it is key that the strategy contains the elements that the sector has identified as being necessary to make a real difference. It has to have robust targets; it has to have a clear line of governance, given that it will be a cross-governmental and cross-departmental strategy; and it has to be resourced in a way that will make a difference. The Minister must now listen to the responses that he will have got in that consultation process, which, I have no doubt, he will have heard loud and clear. He must come back with a strategy that will make a real difference. He must get on with drafting and bringing forward the other strategies that are interlinked and interdependent: a gender strategy and an LGBTQ strategy.

Stephen Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I pay tribute to one of Northern Ireland's greatest ever sportsmen, Jonathan Rea MBE, who recently announced his retirement from world superbike racing. Jonathan represented Northern Ireland on the world stage with incredible distinction, humility and professionalism, He had an incredible, glittering career that included six world superbike championships — a world record — a record 119 race wins and over 260 podium finishes. He firmly established himself as the most successful rider in world superbike history.

Jonathan comes from a proud motor sport background and has never forgotten his roots. His achievements have truly inspired young people across Northern Ireland and beyond. He has shown that someone from here can reach the very top of global sport. Motorcycle racing runs deep in the Rea family, as they supported and raced with the late, great Joey Dunlop, another of our greatest ever sportsmen. Jonathan has been a superb ambassador for Northern Ireland, promoting our country with pride around the world and always recognising his loyal fan base, his team and his family. He was rightly honoured with an MBE by the late Her Majesty the Queen in 2017.

Jonathan's contribution goes far beyond the racetrack. He has helped raise the profile of motor sport, tourism and much more here for many years. As he steps away from the world superbike track, we say, "Thank you, Jonathan Rea, for your dedication, for your excellence, for making us all proud and for giving us so many memories".

We have a proud track record of success in motor sport, and that must be matched with investment. That is why it was excellent to see the Communities Minister invest £187,000 recently to improve motor sport safety across the country, including at iconic events like the North West 200. We look forward to seeing further investment. Jonathan Rea MBE, thank you very much for your service, and congratulations on an incredible career.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Diane, you have one minute.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Finances underpin public service delivery in Northern Ireland, and, more and more, we see the pressures on the Budget. It is time that the Finance Minister stepped up and took accountability for some of the issues with our rates system. Just last week, he replied to my question for written answer to say that £18 million of unpaid rates had been written off in the previous financial year. That brings the total of unpaid rates that have been written off in the past six years up to £82 million, while rolling arrears are in the region of £100 million.

The DUP is committed to delivering for hard-pressed working families in Northern Ireland and has demonstrated that time and time again. As we continue to support the hard-pressed middle who are trying their best to pay their rates, it is unfair that the Finance Minister seems to think that the only way in which the financial pressures can be met is by continuing to increase rates whilst turning a blind eye to those who are not paying the rates that are billed to them. It is time that we saw a change of attitude from the Finance Minister. It is time that he stepped up and recognised the hard-pressed working families —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Your time is up.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

— who are doing their best to pay their rates bills.

Ministerial Statement

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I have received notice from the Minister for the Economy that she wishes to make a statement. As usual, before I call the Minister, I remind Members that they need to be concise in asking their questions. This is not an opportunity for debate or for long-winded introductions. I call the Minister.

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

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

[Translation: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.]

I will update the Assembly on the closure of the non-domestic renewable heat incentive (RHI) scheme. Members will recall that 'New Decade, New Approach' (NDNA), which formed the basis for restoring the Executive in 2020, included a commitment to close the RHI and replace it with a more effective decarbonisation support scheme. Its closure was not progressed in the previous mandate, however, and, in its absence, over £100 million of funding for renewable heat has gone unutilised since 2020. The issue has assumed even greater urgency, as Ofgem will stop administering the scheme from April 2026.

In July of last year, the Executive affirmed their commitment to closure. Subsequently, my Department has been developing a business case that contains significant technical and legal detail. We also engaged constructively with stakeholders, including scheme participants, and I thank all who were involved. I can now confirm that the Department of Finance has approved the business case and that the Executive have agreed a way forward.

My Department will now move to publish a public consultation on the closure arrangements. The consultation will run for eight weeks. At the earliest opportunity, my Department will introduce in the Assembly a Bill that will clarify the Department's powers to close the scheme. I then intend to bring a paper to the Executive in December 2025 to confirm the closure regulations. Subject to the Bill's passage through the Assembly, it is my intention that new regulations will take effect by April 2026.

In securing closure, we must ensure that participants who have acted in good faith receive the payment to which they are legally entitled, while protecting the taxpayer. The closure payment aims to strike that balance. The tariff rate used to calculate closure payments has been independently verified by Professor David Rooney and approved by the Department of Finance. With the scheme's closure and with Ofgem no longer administering it, meters will no longer be monitored for usage. Payments will therefore be based on usage between 2017 and 2019, which is the period that best reflects the heat demand for which installations were designed. Instead of a single, one-off payment, compensation will be staggered over a period of 10 years for a typical participant. That approach will free up my Department to engage with Treasury on a scheme that could utilise approximately £10 million per annum of annually managed expenditure (AME) funding for an alternative use. After the scheme is closed, I will update the Assembly on the progress of engagement with Treasury. That approach also means that payments can be stopped, if an installation is no longer in use.

There are, of course, pros and cons associated with all closure options, but the proposed approach is, I believe, the most reasonable in the circumstances. As we work towards closure, the Executive have also agreed to apply the tariff rate that will be used to calculate closure payments ahead of the coming winter period. If the Assembly agrees, that rate will come into effect in November 2025.

It is long past time that the RHI scheme was closed and the available funding put to better use. With Ofgem stepping away from the scheme's administration by April next year, time is running out. The launch of the consultation will represent a significant step forward. The closure of the RHI scheme will allow my Department to focus its efforts on developing alternative support measures.

We now have a clear path to fulfilling the NDNA commitment and delivering a solution that is fair to participants and taxpayers alike. I commend the statement to the Assembly.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Minister, you must agree that RHI has done untold damage to people and to businesses right across the North who entered into the scheme in good faith. The Assembly previously voted down a proposal from your predecessor to uplift RHI tariffs. Will you confirm what the new tariffs are and how much you intend to uprate for closure payments? When will they come into effect?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for her question. I do not think that anybody would argue that RHI has been a success, and, particularly for the participants who signed up in good faith and genuinely, it would be understatement to say that the scheme has fallen short of their expectations.

I think that I have now circulated the proposed tariff rates. The best one to point to is the lower-medium biomass category, which is where most boiler installations are. The current tariff rate is 2·2p per kilowatt-hour, and it is supposed to be raised to 6·1p per kilowatt-hour. There are a number of different categories, and the Member can see those for herself.

You asked about the timeline. As I indicated in my statement, I intend to introduce temporary regulations immediately so that we can get them set for participants for the coming winter period. That, of course, will require the Assembly's approval, and we will also be endeavouring to have the scheme closure arrangements in place by April next year, which is when Ofgem will cease to administer the scheme.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for her usual courtesy in providing me with an advance copy of her statement. Minister, I think that all Members are united in wanting to achieve a closure that represents value for the taxpayer and respects the participants who entered the scheme in good faith. With that in mind, once your consultation has concluded, will you confirm that the proposals will come to the Executive for cross-party agreement?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for his question. It is my intention that the tariff rates, once consulted on, will be brought back to the Executive for approval before being brought to the Assembly. We hope to have that completed by the end of November/early December, and, as I said to Sinéad, we hope to have the final closure arrangements in place by April next year.

Pádraig Delargy (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for her statement. Minister, what engagement have you had with stakeholders about the closure process?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for his question. There has been significant engagement between departmental officials and scheme participants, and others have been involved as well. As I said in my statement, I am grateful to all who are involved for their constructive engagement. We are in a better place than we have been previously with the arrangements that are proposed to be put in place. I am hopeful that the participants and those who represent them will welcome what is being proposed today. The consultation will take place over the next number of weeks, and that is an opportunity again for participants to share their views on what is being proposed on the way forward.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I welcome the statement and thank the Minister for providing it to us earlier. Minister, you talked about the uplift, and that is verified, but what is different today from what was in place last year? What has changed? Do you accept that RHI has been mismanaged by the Department and that trust has been damaged? What are you doing to repair the trust not only with those RHI participants who went into the scheme in good faith but with the MLAs who are on the Committee?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for his question. As I indicated to Sinéad, the proposed tariff rates have now been circulated to MLAs so that you can look at them and give them consideration. The proposed rates are higher than those proposed last year, and, as I indicated in my statement and other answers, there has been significant engagement with the participants. I believe that we are in a better place because of the constructive engagement that has taken place, and I am grateful that that is the case. For my part, I will endeavour to ensure that the Committee is furnished with what it requires and that we find a way forward on the closure of the scheme but also on all the important work that we have to do across the energy policy area. As the Member will be aware from his work on the Committee, a lot of things are happening in parallel, with energy being a priority area, and the engagement with the Committee is important.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a ráitis.

[Translation: I thank the Minister for her statement.]

Minister, how much will be paid in compensation for the scheme?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for her question. The closure arrangements have been designed to stay within the AME budget, and the proposed tariff rates to be put in place and the payments to be made to participants will be roughly the same amount as in the current arrangements. Over the next 10 years, the scheme is expected to cost up to £196 million of AME, with up to £17 million in resource departmental expenditure limit for the Department to manage the scheme. The amounts have been approved by the Department of Finance as part of the business case, but all of that will be confirmed when the consultation is completed and the tariff rates come to the Assembly.

Gary Middleton (DUP, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for her statement and for the engagement that she says that she has had with the stakeholders. Minister, what confidence can you give to people who applied to the scheme and operated in good faith that, when the consultation is complete, their views will be very much listened to?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for his question. As I indicated in other answers, the engagement with participants has been positive and constructive. We are in a better place with our understanding of the dual aim of being fair to participants and taxpayers. The consultation is the opportunity for people to air their views, and we will fully take on board what is shared through that. It is about a balancing act of being fair to participants but also taking into account the demands of our taxpayers.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Minister, how will the installations be monitored?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for his question. As we move through the closure arrangements, the requirement for metering to be in place will no longer be there. Participants will be required to provide evidence annually that the installation remains in use. The Department will also introduce an audit and review procedure, which will include on-site protections. That is an opportunity to ensure that the installations continue to be used and that the payments are, therefore, being made genuinely.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

I thank the Minister for making the statement to the House today. I welcome her comments on engagement and its importance. It is important to remember that many people who are at the heart of the matter entered the scheme in good faith. Can the Minister give more detail about the level of engagement that there has been with those involved in the scheme and directly impacted on financially?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

As I indicated, the Department has engaged with all key stakeholders, including the Renewable Heat Association and the Ulster Farmers' Union, which represents a fair number of installation owners. Obviously, the consultation is the opportunity for everybody to have their say on the proposals. We are in a much better place than previously because of the constructive engagement. Therefore, I encourage everybody to participate in the consultation once it is launched in the near future.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Minister, it is unfortunate that it has taken the Department so long to get to this point and learn the lessons from what was rejected this time last year. In order to allow farmers to plan cash flow, will you commit today to a date on which the uplift will be implemented? Will you give an assurance that future green schemes will have buy-in from industry and will be co-designed with it to ensure that we are not left with the faux pas that we have had with RHI?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for his question. As I indicated, it is my intention that the regulations to put in place the uplift for this winter will be approved by the Assembly by the end of November. Obviously, that depends on the Assembly's approving the regulations, which means that it is partly in Members' hands. It is important that, when we develop not just renewable energy projects but any projects, we work in partnership with those who will use them and deliver them. We very much ensure that the principle of partnership and co-design is in place for anything that we bring through the Department, including all the energy policy that I referred to when responding to Mr Honeyford. I am certainly happy to give that commitment.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Members should take their ease before we move to the next item of business.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Blair] in the Chair)

Opposition Business

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

I beg to move

That this Assembly expresses regret that the Minister for Infrastructure and Executive colleagues failed to take the necessary actions to ensure that the A5 western transport corridor scheme could withstand legal challenge; and calls on the Executive to ensure that the A5 scheme begins construction by the end of the Assembly mandate.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. Three amendments have been selected and are published on the Marshalled List, so the Business Committee has agreed that 45 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate.

Mr McCrossan, please open the debate on the motion.

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. First and foremost, we are thinking of all of those families who have lost loved ones on the A5 road since the scheme's announcement in 2007. They have suffered the worst possible consequences of that dangerous road: the loss of sons and daughters, husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, and friends and neighbours.

The debate is not abstract. It is not about lines on a map or figures on a balance sheet; it is about people in West Tyrone, Derry, Donegal and beyond who live every single day with the reality of a dangerous, crumbling A5 road. Over 50 lives have been lost on the A5 since the project was first announced. Dozens more people have been left with life-changing injuries. Behind every statistic is a family and community left in grief. That is why the A5 Enough is Enough campaign exists. Families who should never have had to beg for a safe road have carried their pain with courage and dignity, determined to ensure that no one else endures what they have had to endure.

The road unites us in frustration, anger and our shared demand for something better. No party, community or tradition is untouched by the grief that the road has caused. Every family travelling on the A5 knows of the anxiety, the dread and the near misses. We are united by the pain that it has inflicted and in our frustration at seeing promise after promise broken.

The A5 scheme is not just about safety but about fairness. The A5 is the main artery that connects Derry, Strabane, Omagh and Tyrone to Dublin and the wider island economy. It is the gateway for trade, investment and jobs. It is vital for agriculture, hauliers and businesses who are trying to get their goods to market. Without the scheme, the north-west is shackled, investment is deterred, businesses look elsewhere and our young people are forced to leave to find opportunity elsewhere. Every delay has been a lost opportunity and has led to further loss of life. Every collapse has been another signal that this shambles of an Executive treats our region as second-class. Let us be absolutely clear about where the responsibility lies. The project has collapsed not once, not twice but three times, and the trend is clear. Each collapse was avoidable. Each collapse was the result of ministerial failure. Every collapse has the fingerprints of Sinn Féin Ministers all over it.

The first failure was under Minister Conor Murphy, who failed to account for the requirements of the habitats directive, a fundamental oversight that left the project legally vulnerable. The second failure came when Sinn Féin collapsed the Assembly for a number of years. With no Minister in place, the permanent secretary lacked the authority necessary to proceed. The project was withdrawn, and years were lost because of Sinn Féin playing politics with people's lives. The third and most recent failure was under Minister John O'Dowd. The Planning Appeals Commission (PAC) produced a detailed report with clear recommendations for making the scheme robust. The report sat on the Minister's desk for a year — a year of inaction, a year wasted. When the case returned to the court, the judge was furious at the Department's clear failures. That is not the only time that the judge criticised the Department for Infrastructure: recently, he described it as a "laughing stock". What does that say about how the Department is being run? In the middle of the legal process for one of the biggest projects facing our people, Sinn Féin even swapped out its Ministers, signalling chaos and instability at the very moment when our people were demanding stability. That is not misfortune or bad luck; it is absolute incompetence at the heart of government, and, shockingly, it is repeated over and over again.

While the dithering and bungling continues, the cost of the A5 has ballooned. When it began, the cost of the project was estimated at £800 million: it has now escalated to a shocking £2·1 billion. That escalation is due not just to inflation or delay but to mismanagement and a total failure to deliver. Families in the north-west are paying the price for Sinn Féin's incompetence in government in the North not only with their lives but with their money. Let me say something about the present condition of the A5 and roads across Tyrone. While we wait endlessly for promises that never materialise, the road is falling apart and is not fit for purpose, with potholes, dangerous patchwork repairs and crumbling surfaces. Vehicles are being damaged every day. Families who are already battling with a cost-of-living crisis are being hit with repair bills for tyres, suspension and wheels, all because the Executive have failed to invest in the west. People pay twice: once through taxes and again through their repair bills. That is unfair, unsustainable and unacceptable.

Some in the House will be quick to point to former Minister Nichola Mallon. Let us be clear: when Minister Mallon held that office, she did her due diligence. She did not chase headlines prior to an election or rush decisions for political gain. She took the time to ensure that the scheme was legally robust and ready to proceed. She handed the project over in good faith, expecting her successors to see it through. Instead, what followed was years of incompetence, dithering and failure by Sinn Féin.

There is another contrast that is worth pointing out. I acknowledge the role of the Irish Government. Despite political instability in this place, the Irish Government have consistently reaffirmed their financial commitment to the A5 through the Shared Island Fund and previous North/South agreements. They have recognised the importance of the project for cross-border connectivity, road safety and economic growth on both sides of the border. Dublin has kept its promise. Sinn Féin is quick to criticise the Irish Government in Dáil Éireann, but, when it comes to Sinn Féin's incompetence here, its members pat each other on the back.

Let me deal with the three amendments before us. Sinn Féin's amendment is nothing short of a self-congratulation exercise: shock. It attempts to absolve Sinn Féin of all responsibility: shock. Sinn Féin pats itself on the back and attempts to rewrite history: shock. The truth is simple: Sinn Féin has ignored the Planning Appeal Commission's recommendations and left the scheme legally vulnerable. Sinn Féin bears responsibility for the project's failure. Sinn Féin's amendment is a whitewash, and we will not support it. Sinn Féin is keen to have all the power but never takes responsibility. Sinn Féin's hands are on the steering wheel, and it has destroyed the progress that is necessary on the project.

The DUP's amendment blames the Climate Change Act 2022, but that Act did not cause the failure. The problem is not the law; it is Sinn Féin's failure to integrate environmental requirements into the design of the scheme. Even if Minister Poots's original 82% target had stood, the A5 would still have collapsed, because the problem was not the numbers in legislation but the sheer ineptitude of Ministers in getting it right. Let me be clear: we absolutely believe that the people of the north-west can and must have safe, modern infrastructure and clean air to breathe. The DUP amendment is another diversion.

The Ulster Unionists' amendment at least recognises the need for fairness for landowners and the urgent need to have a safe road, but it, too, fails the real test of accountability. It shifts the focus from where it should be, which is the repeated failures of Sinn Féin Ministers, the Department and the Executive. For that reason, we will stick with our original motion.

The Opposition's position is clear: we support the A5 because it will save lives. We support it because it will unlock the economic potential of the west. However, support does not mean silence or giving a free pass for years of incompetence by the shambolic DUP/Sinn Féin Government. We welcome the recent intervention by Minister Muir in the appeal. At least someone in the Executive is showing willingness to act, but interventions are not enough. The Executive must guarantee today that construction will begin within this mandate. Families in Tyrone, Derry and Donegal cannot be told once again to wait a little longer.

To the Ministers who have failed I say this: every month that passes without progress, you are responsible for the risk that people face on that road. Every time another family is left grieving, the responsibility is not abstract; it lies with those who have had the power to act but have chosen not to. The A5 is no luxury; it is not an optional extra. It is essential. It is a matter of saving lives, restoring fairness and showing whether the Assembly is capable of delivering for the people we represent.

Fifty lives have been lost. The cost is £2·1 billion and rising. There have been three failed attempts and years upon years wasted. Families are grieving, communities are angry and businesses have been held back, all because Sinn Féin could not do its job. Enough is enough. The excuses must end; the delays must stop; the bungling must stop; and the Assembly must finally deliver. Do your job, and get the road built.

Nicola Brogan (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I beg to move amendment No 1:

Leave out all after "Assembly" and insert: "acknowledges that the Minister for Infrastructure and Executive colleagues worked together to address the recommendations following the Planning Appeals Commission A5 inquiry ; welcomes the Department for Infrastructure's serving a notice of appeal against the A5 judgement; further welcomes the confirmation by the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs that his Department intends to apply to the court to formally intervene in the appeal; recognises the steadfast commitment of the A5 Enough is Enough campaign and the many families tragically bereaved as a result of collisions on the A5; and calls on the Executive to ensure that the A5 scheme begins construction by the end of the Assembly mandate."

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Thank you. You will have 10 minutes to propose amendment No 1 and five minutes to make a winding-up speech.

Nicola Brogan (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

[Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.]

I will speak in support of the A5 and of the amendment that my party colleagues and I have tabled. I am really disappointed by the original motion and the obvious political intent behind it. Anyone here with any real understanding of the devastation that the road has brought to so many families and communities across West Tyrone and across Ireland will know that it is a really serious issue. The A5 is not a political football to be kicked around for cheap political point-scoring. To be honest, if certain Members really wanted to see the road progress, they would get behind the Minister's efforts in the appeal and all the efforts that we are making to ensure that the road is progressed, instead of drafting hollow motions, such as the one we see before us.

The A5 represents a £1·6 billion investment in a part of the country that has suffered from historical underinvestment and lack of critical infrastructure. By significantly reducing travel time to and from the capital, the A5 will open up the north-west for more investment, increased trade, faster commuting and more tourism; promote job creation and regional balance; and improve access to ports, airports and regional gateways. As I have said in here many times, however, the most important reason for having the A5 scheme is that it will save lives. As someone from Omagh, which is right at the heart of the A5, and having witnessed the devastation that the road has caused to our communities, I am passionate about the issue. I have spoken multiple times in the Chamber about the need for the A5 to be upgraded. Last week, I spoke of the 57 lives that had been lost on the road since 2006. It is important to remember that that is not just a number or a statistic but 57 grieving families, 57 groups of friends, 57 sets of neighbours and 57 communities that have been torn apart by the loss of each loved one. I again pay tribute to the families who have been bereaved as a result of collisions on the A5. They have shown great dignity, strength and patience throughout the entire process despite the obvious hurt and pain that they are carrying. I also thank Tyrone GAA's A5 — Enough Is Enough campaign group for its tireless work and for its steadfast commitment to ensuring that the road is delivered.

It is important to remember that, with every objection and every delay and every time that the Assembly fails to get behind the Minister's efforts to push the project forward, more lives are put in danger. Minister Kimmins deserves recognition for her refusal to give up on the north-west and the A5. The appeal that she has lodged is further proof of her commitment to the project and of her determination to see it through. I also commend Minister Muir for his efforts in supporting the appeal and for demonstrating meaningful and tangible support for the project.

Every effort has been made to ensure that the A5 western transport corridor scheme meets the most stringent requirements. All legitimate concerns have been heard, and every effort has been made to address them. I urge those who are leading the campaign of objection to the project to examine their conscience and ask themselves whether denying their family, friends and neighbours a major infrastructure, economic and safety investment is really the legacy that they want to leave. Enough time has been wasted and enough lives lost. Enough is enough. Let us work together to get the A5 built.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

I beg to move amendment No 2:

Leave out all after "Minister for Infrastructure" and insert: "failed to take the necessary actions to ensure that the A5 western transport corridor scheme could withstand legal challenge; calls on the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to present proposals to the Executive to amend aspirational net zero targets, ensuring that major infrastructure projects are not stymied and construction of an agreed A5 scheme begins as soon as possible; further calls on the Minister of Finance to urgently commit to providing fair compensation to affected landowners for loss of income and costs of reinstatement; and calls on the Minister for Infrastructure, notwithstanding the notice of appeal against the A5 judgement, to implement fresh road safety measures on the A5 in order to prevent further loss of life."

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

You will have 10 minutes in which to propose the amendment and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. Please open the debate on amendment No 2, Mr Martin.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. First, like others, I extend my sympathies to all the families who have lost loved ones along the A5. A total of 50 people have lost their lives since the upgrade of the 58-mile stretch of road between Aughnacloy and New Buildings was first scheduled to begin. None of us in the Chamber will ever be able to empathise with the pain that those families have gone through, but our thoughts remain with them.

The £1·7 billion project was given authorisation last October to proceed. It was then subject to judicial review. In June, a court found that the Minister's plans for the road did not comply with climate change targets. I intend to start with that judgement.

The outcome of the proceedings has caused a level of turmoil for those who wish to see the A5 upgrade proceed and a level of uncertainty for landowners and farmers whose livelihoods have been placed in limbo for well over a decade. The A5 scheme, regardless of whether Members think that it should happen, is now completely stalled and not because of Mr Justice McAlinden's judgement. He applied the law, which is his role. He applied the strictures of the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, which was, in fact, a compromise position instead of having even more stringent targets, which, at the time, were supported by Sinn Féin, the SDLP, the Alliance Party and the Green Party.

It is worth highlighting aspects of Mr Justice McAlinden's judgement. At paragraph 200, he states:

"The DfI statement does not detail or contain any reference to any such evidence being provided by DAERA and, in contrast with the evidence provided by DfE at the hearing of this matter, nothing was forthcoming from DAERA to indicate that prior to the DfI making its decision, it had provided the DfI with any form of evidence or evidence-based assurance".

Frankly, that is astounding. While it remains clear to me that the Minister for Infrastructure must take ultimate responsibility, it seems to me that, while that Minister was drowning, the AERA Minister took a life jacket out of the cupboard but did not throw it into the water.

That is, frankly, a baffling lack of coordination between those two Departments, and, if I have time, I will come back to that point.

Patsy McGlone (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

Thank you for giving way. I just want to clarify your point. That happened in spite of the fact that, as has been clarified to me, DAERA and DFI met 13 times over that period to discuss the project.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Member for his intervention. I was not party to that information. However, the point that I made still stands in that the judge was scathing about the lack of coordination between those two Departments and especially about the AERA Minister because of the lack of support that DFI had.

Our amendment seeks to do three things. First, it seeks to amend net zero targets so that critical infrastructure can continue to be built in Northern Ireland. Secondly, it seeks to ensure that all landowners who are affected by the scheme are provided with appropriate compensation by the Minister of Finance. Thirdly, it seeks to ensure that that stretch of road, notwithstanding whether the A5 is built — that is currently subject to appeal — is safe for road users and pedestrians alike. In the interim, while awaiting the appeal, the Infrastructure Minister must look at further road safety measures, such as average speed cameras and speed reduction measures. It is time for action on that, not delay. Work must be taken forward to prevent any further loss of life.

It is not for us to answer some of the questions about the matter. Rather, it is for the parties that, in 2022, put those extraordinary climate change targets on the House. I have outlined, and people might take a different view on this, the reasons why the A5 is not proceeding. We have heard two reasons already this afternoon in the Chamber. As I read through this information, it was completely clear to me that the reason why the A5 is not proceeding is because Mr Justice McAlinden said that it could not proceed in its current form. Take a step back from that and ask this: why? It is for two reasons. One is the real lack of coordination between DAERA and DFI, and the second is the climate change targets that we have set ourselves. Whether it is DFI or DAERA, those climate change targets are now a significant problem for the Executive and for Northern Ireland.

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

I thank the Member for giving way. I just want to point out a very important fact for the Member so that he understands. Whether the target was 82%, as suggested by the DUP, or 100% net zero by 2050, the legal duty to produce carbon budgets, sectoral plans and climate action plans still applies under the Act. To be clear, the Department's failure was not about hitting that target; it was about ignoring the process that was required to assess compliance with whatever target was set. That is where the failure was. It was nothing to do with the figure; it was about the failure of the process, as the judge pointed out.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Member for West Tyrone for his intervention. My understanding — I will take the Member at his word — was that there did not seem to be any offsetting or coordination between the two Departments on how the impact of the road's being built would be offset in terms of climate change. That is certainly my understanding.

Will those parties now agree that a more realistic and pragmatic approach is needed to balance real environmental challenges with economic realities? I will quote directly from Mr Justice McAlinden's High Court judgement. He said that the climate change action plan, which is the responsibility of the AERA Minister, does not make any reference whatsoever to:

"this major infrastructure project in the context of the process of formulating and co-ordinating plans, strategies and policies that map out a realistic and achievable pathway for Northern Ireland to achieve net zero by 2050".

I hope that that, in part, answers the Member's last question.

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

I thank the Member for giving way. I just want the Member to understand this point, which I know that he will. The DUP is very quick to duck out of the 100% net zero target, but, regardless of whether the target was 100% or 82%, the failure still would have occurred because the process was not followed. To be clear, it is not about the target. That is a myth, and it needs to be busted.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

Thank you very much. The Member and I will have to agree to disagree on that one, but I always welcome his comments.

In summary, the project seems to be in disarray politically, strategically and financially. As I said when opening my contribution, I do not believe, if I am honest, that it is by any stretch the sole responsibility of the Infrastructure Minister. I criticised her and pointed out where the failings are, but others who placed on the Assembly the targets that will be so problematic to this project and further infrastructure projects must bear some responsibility for that.

Do I get another minute, Mr Deputy Speaker?

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

You have 10 minutes.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

Just 10 minutes? I had better get my skates on.

The Infrastructure Minister stated:

"I ... reiterate in the strongest possible terms my commitment to the delivery of that long-awaited project."— [Official Report (Hansard), 13 May 2025, p70, col 2].

Will she bear that statement in mind as she answers some of my questions this afternoon? Will she commit now to supporting revised climate change targets to ensure that that project and other future major infrastructure projects are not failed or stalled? Will she explain what the adding of DAERA to the appeal case seeks to achieve and what conversations she has had with the AERA Minister regarding that? If the appeal is lost, what is her plan B for ensuring safety on the A5? Finally, how will she compensate those landowners who continue to be in limbo regarding the scheme?

I commend our amendment to the House.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I beg to move amendment No 3:

Leave out all after "Minister for Infrastructure" and insert: "failed to take the necessary actions to ensure that the A5 western transport corridor scheme could withstand legal challenge; calls on the Minister for Infrastructure to make saving lives on this road the absolute priority, while also treating landowners fairly and respectfully, and to put in place other road safety measures and better public transport options for the north-west if the A5 faces further delays; and further calls on the Minister to ensure that commencement of an agreed legally compliant A5 scheme begins as soon as possible and to set out clearly how the project will stay within the carbon budget limits required by law."

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Thank you. The Assembly should note that the amendments are mutually exclusive. If amendment No 1 is made, the Question will not be put on amendment Nos 2 or 3. If amendment No 1 is not made, the Question will be put on amendment No 2, and, if it is made, the Question will not be put on amendment No 3.

Mr Butler, you will have 10 minutes in which to propose amendment No 3 and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other contributors will have five minutes. Please open the debate on amendment No 3.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. When the motion came out and the amendments went in, I thought that seeing three amendments that are mutually exclusive should send some message of comfort to the families in that area who have been bereaved. The fact that 50 people have lost their life on that stretch of road since 2007 is quite horrific, and it means something to us all. If nothing else comes out of the Chamber today, let us hope that there is a message of solidarity with the families and of how everybody, regardless of the arguments made, wants to see delivery.

Few debates in the Chamber at the moment command the same urgency and carry such moral weight as this one because of those deaths and their impact on families. The facts are stark and unarguable. Too many lives have been lost on that stretch of road. Too many families have been left shattered by preventable tragedies. Every one of us in the Chamber knows and has heard the calls from the A5 Enough is Enough campaigners and the grieving families who simply want a safer future for others. Saving lives must be the first and "absolute priority", and it is from that perspective that the Ulster Unionist Party tabled amendment No 3. It is the most balanced amendment. I ask the Opposition to reconsider whether they will support it.

The UUP amendment is grounded not in political one-upmanship or the temptation to point fingers, as is so often the case in the Chamber, but in the clear-eyed recognition of the fact that the Minister has a duty to deliver the project lawfully, competently and urgently. That means, yes, building the road but doing so in such a way that withstands scrutiny, respects those who are affected and aligns with the legislative framework that the Assembly put in law. We must be clear: the A5 will be built. It is a matter of seeing not just whether it will be built but how we will do so. In answering the "How?", it is impossible to ignore the repeated failures of multiple Departments to work together effectively, which speaks to Mr Martin's points. Long before the recent judicial intervention, it was evident that siloed thinking, poor communications and elective collective leadership were undermining delivery. Too often, Departments acted as though their obligations were in conflict with each other's rather than being capable of being reconciled through cooperation and planning. That is simply not good enough. Executive parties and Ministers need to be very aware of that, and we need to see more cross-departmental working.

The Assembly writes the laws of Northern Ireland and Departments are bound to apply them. It is therefore simply indefensible when Departments cannot evidence compliance with our own legislation. When they cannot demonstrate that due process has been followed, or when they treat legal obligations as an afterthought rather than as a foundation stone, that is not merely a technical failing: it is a failure of leadership and responsibility. It is precisely that gap that has brought us the repeated delays and the frustration of communities that have been promised so much for so long.

We can also not overlook the experience of landowners. Too many of them feel as though they have been left in the dark and treated as an inconvenience rather than as citizens whose lives and livelihoods have been directly impacted on. The UUP amendment puts it plainly: people must be treated "fairly and respectfully". That means having timely communication, honest promises and adequate compensation where there is loss. We cannot, on one hand, call for progress and, on the other, ignore those whose property is directly tied up in that progress. Trust must be rebuilt with landowners because, without it, the legitimacy of the project is undermined from the ground up.

The DUP amendment also acknowledges a further truth. If further delays occur, road safety measures cannot wait. Temporary improvements, enforcement and better public transport options for the north-west must be advanced in parallel. We cannot allow the tragic roll call of lives lost on the A5 to continue simply because the legal process takes time. Leadership means acting on every available front to save lives, not standing idly by until the ribbon is cut.

Here is where my party's amendment actually distinguishes itself. It grapples with the reality of carbon budgets. Colleagues, it was the Assembly that passed legally binding climate commitments. I accept that people come at that from different directions. However, whether one agrees or disagrees with their pace or ambition, those commitments are the law of the land. Major infrastructure cannot simply be waved through without regard to that framework. To do so would invite only further legal challenge and more years of delay. That is what it would consign it to.

We are demanding clarity from the Minister for Infrastructure on how the A5 project will stay within those limits; not as a box-ticking exercise but as a demonstration that the Government are capable of delivering complex projects in line with overlapping statutory obligations. That leadership has been lacking. That must change if the A5 is to proceed without further obstruction.

The families who have lost loved ones do not want to hear excuses. The farmers and landowners who see their fields and livelihoods directly impacted on do not want to be kept in the dark. The communities of the north-west do not want another round of promises without delivery. They want action, honesty and leadership. The Ulster Unionist Party amendment strikes the right balance. It insists that saving lives comes first. It insists on fairness for landowners. It insists that road safety measures cannot be paused if there are further delays. It insists on lawful, competent delivery that can withstand further challenge because it has respected the law at every stage.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

Will the Member take an intervention?

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I am nearly at the end of my remarks, but I will.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Member for that. Does he agree that it is astounding that a senior judge stated that, prior to DFI's making its decision, DAERA had provided it with no form of evidence or evidence-based assurance around that issue? I raise the matter with the Member because he is on the Agriculture Committee. Does he agree that that is, frankly, astounding when it relates to evidence as part of a High Court judgement?

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I absolutely do. Only for the fact that there is an ongoing legal process, I would say a lot more. I certainly do not want to impact on that, but it is quite astonishing. Given that the Climate Change Act was one of the top pieces of legislation — certainly, the highest profile one — that we passed, and that some parties beat the drum loudly on it, it is very disappointing that the evidence was not provided to the judge or for the assessment of need at that time. As I said, that is evidenced in my submission on the amendment. There is a dearth of cross-departmental working, particularly on what we would call "high-profile" aspects of delivery for the Executive.

We need to send out a clear message on the delivery of the A5 that public safety is of paramount importance to the Assembly but that adherence to our legislation also be respected. That is what the project deserves and what those who travel the A5 deserve, and that is what the Assembly should demand today.

Peter McReynolds (Alliance, Belfast East)

I speak today as an Alliance Party spokesperson on infrastructure, as chair of the all-party group on road safety and as someone with family members who use the A5 daily. Since becoming an MLA in 2022, I have met a number of families who have, sadly, lost loved ones on our roads. Each family still carries the pain of that loss.

It is obvious that there were major failings in the Department's evidence to the High Court. That surprised me at the time, to be honest, given the delays that I was seeing across other DFI areas because, I was advised, all resources were being thrown at the A5 case to ensure a positive result. All the while, the question that colleagues and I have kept asking ourselves is this: since the announcement of the scheme 20-odd years ago, what major road safety improvements have there actually been along that stretch of road? To this day, sadly, we have lost over 50 lives, and I am not aware of any significant, tangible interim solutions having been introduced. Perhaps the Minister can speak to that point in her remarks later. Instead, we have waited on an upgrade that, 20 years later, has not happened. Just last week, during Question Time, I asked the Infrastructure about steps that her Department can take to improve road safety in general, but specific measures can also be taken along that particular road.

As the chair of the all-party group on road safety, I am acutely aware of the dangers of the road. We regularly meet Chief Superintendent Sam Donaldson, who consistently highlights the fact that no road is a safe road, but that does not mean that there is nothing that we can do to make the A5 safer. Speed cameras, speed limits and road signage can make road users more aware of their driving, with the goal being to reduce injuries and fatalities overall. Those things may not fix every issue or prevent every tragedy, but they can contribute to reducing their numbers. We need to address the dangers of the A5 now, not wait another decade for it to be completed.

Such a sensitive topic should not be used to unpick climate change legislation, given that, on two previous occasions, the A5 upgrade's being paused by a court ruling was not down to the Climate Change Act. Indeed, Judge McAlinden made clear in his judgement that the Climate Change Act does not prevent large infrastructure projects but requires evidence of their planning and coordination to ensure that they meet the requirements of the Act. The way forward is not to go back on climate change law but to hold to account those who have not done their due diligence and ask why potential issues were not addressed in the first place.

Stephen Dunne (DUP, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

Peter McReynolds (Alliance, Belfast East)

I am just concluding. Sorry.

The families deserve more than finger-pointing and the blame game. They deserve real solutions as we work towards a safer A5 and the positives that can come from that.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I recognise the hardship and suffering of the families who have lost loved ones on the treacherous A5. I also acknowledge the Minister and her Executive colleagues for working to address the recommendations of the Planning Appeals Commission's A5 inquiry. As an MLA for West Tyrone, I particularly welcome the Department for Infrastructure's decision to serve a notice of appeal against the A5 judgement. That action demonstrates that we are taking the matter seriously and moving to address it. Our focus remains clear: it is about delivering the A5 dual carriageway that our community so urgently needs. That has been reflected across the Chamber today.

I will keep my remarks relatively succinct, because I am conscious that this matter is part of an ongoing legal case, but I cannot stand here without acknowledging the terrible loss of life on the A5. I extend my deepest sympathies to all the families who have lost loved ones and continue to endure unspeakable grief. Finally, I pay tribute to the Enough is Enough campaign. Its tireless work, determination and courage have ensured that the voices of families and communities are heard loud and clear. Its efforts remind us all of why this project is so important.

Stephen Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I speak in support of the amendment that we, as a party, have tabled to the motion on this very important issue. As others have said, we cannot lose sight of the human cost behind the debate. The A5 has been the scene of far too many tragedies. Families across Tyrone and Northern Ireland and beyond have been left truly devastated by the loss of lives, young and old, that were tragically cut short on this very dangerous section of road. Our thoughts and prayers must always remain with the people who have lost loved ones, bearing in mind the impact on those families and communities who live daily with the consequences of the real risks on that road. Having recently met a family in my constituency who lost a loved one in a road tragedy, I know that it is horrific and that the pain does not just go away. That should be first and foremost in all our minds.

The A5 upgrade has been promised for almost 20 years, having been first mooted in 2007, yet, time and time again, all we have seen is false dawns. There have been repeated delays, and, most recently, the High Court ruling has stalled progress once again. My colleague the Chair of the Infrastructure Committee highlighted how clear — black and white — the High Court verdict was. All that has been delivered by this Minister and her predecessor's Department to date is confusion and yet more uncertainty. That is simply not good enough.

The most recent High Court ruling has caused considerable distress and further uncertainty for landowners and farming families, whose livelihoods have been left in limbo for well over a decade. The Infrastructure Committee, in joint meetings with the AERA Committee, has heard that directly a number of times from landowners and groups such as the Ulster Farmers' Union, which has tried to support farmers and their families throughout what can only be described as the shambolic handling of the scheme by the Department, certainly in recent years. Land has been vested and then is not vested. Preparatory work has started, been halted and then started again. Significant disruption has occurred while legal proceedings have dragged on. Farmers have had their land dug up, with some of it rendered unsuitable for agricultural purposes. The impact of that has been nothing short of devastating, and lessons about the handling of the case should have been learned much earlier, given the impact that it has had on so many families.

Our amendment recognises a hard truth, which is that unless we address the barriers that have been created by the current legislative framework, major infrastructure projects will continue to be tied up in legal wrangling rather than being delivered on the ground. We have yet to hear from the Minister how the appeal will address Mr Justice McAlinden's clear reference in his ruling to climate targets that were supported by Sinn Féin, the Alliance Party, the SDLP and others. Some of those parties continue to live in denial about the impact of those climate targets on so many areas of life in Northern Ireland, not just in relation to the A5 but on a whole range of vital infrastructure projects and other key flagship projects.

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

Will the Member give way?

Stephen Dunne (DUP, North Down)

No, I will not.

That is why it is right to call on the AERA Minister to bring forward proposals to amend aspirational yet unachievable net zero targets. Targets must be realistic, affordable and balanced with the urgent need for investment in infrastructure that saves lives and strengthens our community and connectivity.

I mentioned the burden of uncertainty on landowners and farmers and the disruption that that has caused to businesses. Our amendment rightly calls on the Minister of Finance to look at fairly compensating those who have been impacted on, not only for the value of their land but for the ongoing loss of income and the cost of reinstatement amid the confusion. That is a matter of basic fairness and respect.

Given the very serious and ongoing road safety concerns, the High Court judgement has only added to the urgent need for action. As others have said, now is the time to seriously consider the necessary practical steps towards improving road safety. There are simple, practical steps that have been seen to work and be effective in other areas, including my constituency, such as better signage, better junction layouts, average speed cameras and targeted enforcement. Those measures could make a real difference and, ultimately, save lives in the short to medium term. Given the road safety concerns, there is a duty on the Minister for Infrastructure to deliver action urgently and not at some distant point in the future. I look forward to hearing from the Minister. I hope that she will take the opportunity to take action and that the clock will not be run down while she is in office.

I commend our amendment as a balanced and constructive way forward, and I ask the House to support it.

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

I thank the SDLP for tabling the motion. As other Members have highlighted, the cost of the A5 project is staggering, from impeding economic growth in the north-west to causing long journey times and, tragically, preventable deaths. Nearly a decade on since the announcement, the road project has come to represent our failure to deliver critical infrastructure. People who use the road, along with those who have lost loved ones on it, are fully justified in their frustration at yet more delays following the court ruling. The setbacks are symptomatic of the instability that was caused by the collapse of our political institutions, first from 2017 to 2020 and again from 2022 to 2024. That stop-start governing has also delayed Northern Ireland's first climate action plan, which is a legal requirement under the Climate Change Act 2022.

Although Minister Muir's swift move to consultation is welcome, there remains an obvious absence of a finalised plan, as was highlighted in the recent judgement. Mr Justice McAlinden was clear that a climate action plan that takes into account the emissions that the A5 will generate can help provide a pathway not only to delivering the project but to meeting our carbon reduction targets. It is therefore right that the Assembly express its regret that the Department for Infrastructure did not take the necessary actions to ensure that the A5 scheme was not vulnerable to predictable legal challenges, especially regarding compliance with the Climate Change Act.

Let me be clear, however: the Climate Change Act is not an obstacle to the A5 scheme. The judgement unequivocally stated that major infrastructure projects can proceed if they are properly planned and are integrated with strategies to achieve net zero by 2050. As the ruling states, the Act does not prevent a major project proceeding but, rather, rules out construction in the absence of robust planning and coordination across Departments.

We should not retreat from the climate commitments that were unanimously adopted in 2022. Rather, we must balance our need for infrastructure upgrades with our imperative to protect the ecosystem, restore biodiversity and improve our water quality. The main lesson to learn from the High Court ruling is that major projects across all Departments must be designed, assessed and justified according to our statutory climate commitments. There can be no shortcuts taken. That must be the standard practice for all future schemes.

On amendment No 1, I commend the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs for his announcement that his Department intends to apply to the court to intervene in the appeal formally. Through its doing so, we can clarify the interpretation and enforcement of the Climate Change Act. That shows the Minister's commitment to his Department's climate change responsibilities.

We cannot pick and choose which laws to uphold. Striking the right balance involves supporting infrastructure while fully delivering on our climate commitments, which place binding duties on all Departments. Every Department must meet its obligations to reduce carbon emissions and protect our natural environment. The ruling also exposes the ongoing issue of government silos that can delay progress. Greater cross-departmental collaboration is crucial, especially as climate considerations increasingly inform decisions. An integrated approach is therefore needed to prevent the kinds of delays that we see today.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Member for taking an intervention. Does he have any insight into why the AERA Minister did not provide any evidence to the court when Mr Justice McAlinden was considering his A5 judgement? That is the Minister's responsibility.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Member has an extra minute.

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

That would be for the Minister to answer.

The journey ahead for each and every Department will not be easy, but we should recognise the significant opportunities that climate change action presents: green jobs; lower energy bills; vibrant public spaces; and better health.

The Alliance Party wants Northern Ireland to be a leader rather than a follower in the green industrial revolution. The ruling therefore ruling sets a clear precedent. Climate change legislation is not optional but, rather, a binding framework that impacts on every decision, including infrastructure development. How we respond to the A5 scheme will signal how seriously we take climate obligations and collaborative governance.

To conclude, amendment Nos 1 and 3 can be supported in principle. The Alliance Party cannot, however, support amendment No 2, as it directly contradicts the climate commitments that the House has enshrined in law through the Climate Change Act. By doing so, the amendment seeks to shift the burden on to the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs rather than place it on the Minister for Infrastructure to work with our climate legislation and achieve better outcomes for road users and our natural environment. Furthermore, it removes the commitment that is outlined in amendment No 1 for the A5 scheme to start construction by the end of the Assembly mandate, which is a delay that we cannot afford.

The Alliance Party remains open to constructive cooperation with other parties and Ministers in order to better protect our environment. I am confident that the Department for Infrastructure can now act with urgency, clarity and respect for the law, and, most importantly, for those affected, so that the A5 project can move forward in this mandate, thus setting the benchmark for responsible climate-conscious governance.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Question Time begins at 2.00 pm, so I suggest that the Assembly take its ease until then to allow for changes to be made to the top Table. The debate will continue after the questions for urgent oral answer, when the next Member to be called to speak will be Justin McNulty.

The debate stood suspended.

(Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair)

Oral Answers to Questions — The Executive Office

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

We will start with listed questions. Question 12 has been withdrawn.

Andy Allen (UUP, Belfast East)

1. Mr Allen asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline the number of people who have been supported by the Victims and Survivors Service (VSS) in each of the past five years. (AQO 2371/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

With your indulgence, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I wish Deborah Erskine well on the birth of her wee baby, Olivia. Deborah posted on social media yesterday and described her as her "wee heart warrior", so I am sure that everyone is mindful of her family at this time, and I wish them the best.

The Victims and Survivors Service supports victims and survivors of the Troubles/conflict, historical institutional abuse, mother-and-baby homes, Magdalene laundries and workhouses. Support and services are provided both directly by the VSS and through 47 community and voluntary sector partner organisations. Over the past five full years of delivery, VSS has supported an average of 7,000 individuals per year across three delivery areas. In addition, in partnership with its partner organisations, VSS has delivered health and well-being support and services to over 12,500 victims and survivors per year in local communities, with the vast majority of that support being provided to those who have been impacted by conflict here, which is more than 12,000 people. Alongside that, over the past five years, VSS and its community partners have also provided application support to over 7,000 individuals in relation to the victims' payments scheme.

Andy Allen (UUP, Belfast East)

I echo the First Minister's comments in sending our best wishes to Deborah.

First Minister, thank you for your answer. Will you provide clarification on the number of people who have applied but not been successful in receiving support under VSS and say why they were not successful?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

As of the week commencing 15 September, 11,853 applications had been submitted to the victims' payments scheme. Payments totalling almost £108 million have been made to all eligible applicants, offering meaningful recognition of the harm that they have suffered. With the scheme now set to close for new applications in August 2026, I take the opportunity to strongly encourage anyone who may be eligible to get their application submitted before that deadline, and I will say again that support is available through a number of victims and survivors' representative groups for anyone who needs help with the application process.

The cases are complex and involve complex applications. Given the historical nature of many of the incidents, the applications present a challenge to those who assess them. However, the board remains committed to processing them as efficiently as possible. It will also continue to work with the representative groups to ensure that feedback is taken on board about issues that are encountered. I do not have the number of applications that have been declined, but I will make sure that you get that in writing.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I also offer my best wishes to Deborah and her family on the birth of their beautiful wee baby girl. I am delighted to see that everybody is safe and well.

First Minister, it is evident from your response that the Victims and Survivors Service is involved in a wide delivery of its portfolio. Do you agree that it is essential that VSS has a full board complement and that it is currently suboptimal, given that there has been a protracted delay in making board appointments to the service?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I concur with that and fully recognise the vital role that the Victims and Survivors Service plays in supporting individuals across our society. I am grateful for the continued dedication of the current board. I certainly agree that it is suboptimal that a permanent chair and a full complement of board members are still not in place.

The Member raised the issue of the delay in making appointments. By way of explanation, which, I believe, I have given in the Chamber before, interviews for the post concluded on 11 March 2024, and, as per the Commissioner for Public Appointments code of practice, we then received the unranked list of successful candidates on 26 March. On 19 June, we issued our list of preferred candidates, and, on 21 June, the candidates were informed by HR Connect that they had been successful. All pre-employment checks have been completed. We now need the public appointments to be made, and we need to make sure that the board has its full complement. I am determined to ensure that that is done without further delay.

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

Last week, the First Minister said:

"Sinn Féin will continue to stand with families in their pursuit of truth, justice and accountability."

Does she agree that former IRA members should come forward with their truth to the PSNI and the new truth recovery body?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Member will be aware that both Governments launched their joint framework last week. All the parties will take time to review that. Unfortunately, without having the legislative text, it is hard for us to pass proper judgement on what the framework will do and how it will deliver. Ultimately, it needs to be inclusive, and it needs to command the support of the victims and survivors — all victims and survivors. It also has to be human-rights-compliant. Until we see the legislation, we cannot properly assess that.

I would much prefer it if the Member, rather than looking back constantly over his shoulder and trying to score points, worked with me and others to find a way to build a brighter and better future and worked with everybody to make sure that we have a way of dealing with the past that is inclusive and for which we get maximum buy-in across society. That is my endeavour. I want us to deal with the past and unburden today's generation from yesterday. The only way that we can do that is by working together and by ensuring that the legislation is human-rights-compliant and, hopefully, commands maximum support from all victims and survivors. When I speak of "victims", I mean all victims.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

I will pick up on the joint framework that was announced last week; I am not asking the First Minister to pass judgement on it yet. The First Minister's Department has responsibility for support for victims and survivors. Will she instruct a review of current programmes, with a view to better supporting victims and survivors under the new policy framework?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

As I acknowledged, we are all trying to work out exactly what this means legislatively. The framework, when translated into legislation, could look completely different from what has been said in the framework document. I want us to understand that. I hope that they move to publish that legislation — I urge them to do so — so that we can all look at it.

We have a strategy for victims and survivors. We have just launched our new strategy, and we have opened the funding call for the 2026-28 victim support programme. That call will close on 6 November to ensure that any new programmes are in place by 1 April next year. That central activity is needed to implement many of the commitments in the strategy to ensure that our services are appropriate and meet the changing needs of victims and survivors. The strategy will ensure that the right to trauma-informed and victim-centred services is in place to empower and support victims and survivors and contribute to building a shared and peaceful future. It also sets out the specific issues affecting victims and survivors, with particular focus on their needs.

It is inevitable that the Victims and Survivors Service will have received an increased level of communication, particularly given the publication of the framework on Friday. That will continue. It is important that we have a service that supports all people to understand what the legislative text sets out regarding the bodies. We will have to keep that under review to make sure that we are fit for purpose. The strategy is the right strategy. If, in the aftermath of the framework, we can tweak it in respect of the needs of victims and survivors, that is what we should do.

Justin McNulty (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

What is the First Minister's assessment of the sad reality that many victims who suffered so-called punishment beatings and punishment attacks with cudgels with nails driven through them or baseball bats or punishment shootings by the IRA in their own homes — often in front of their wives and children — do not qualify for the scheme?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Minister.

Justin McNulty (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

How can you explain that? How can that be?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Minister, answer that whatever way you feel appropriate. It is not related to the original question.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

All I can say is that our strategy for victims and survivors is to support all people who have been injured throughout the conflict. It is important that it is all-inclusive and that we close the door to nobody. I trust that the strategy that we have is the right strategy. I encourage new applications to come forward, as we opened our new applications process in August.

Maolíosa McHugh (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

2. Mr McHugh asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for their assessment of the need for the regulation of bonfires. (AQO 2372/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

With your permission, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I will ask junior Minister Reilly to answer the question.

Aisling Reilly (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The issues around cultural expression are some of the most challenging that we as a society face here. The Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition (FICT) considered those issues and made a number of recommendations relating to bonfires. They have been considered as part of the review of the Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC) strategy that we are actively working through with officials.

We recognise and understand the potential for bonfires to have environmental implications, alongside health and safety concerns, and we know that bonfires can be used to display offensive messages, flags, effigies and other materials that cause offence. We want to be very clear that there is no room for sectarian or racial intolerance towards individuals and acts of intimidation have no place in our society. We remain committed to building a peaceful and inclusive shared future for all.

Maolíosa McHugh (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire shóisearach as a freagra.

[Translation: I thank the junior Minister for her answer.]

Minister, will you outline what work is happening to address illegal, unregulated bonfires?

Aisling Reilly (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chomhalta as a fhreagra.

[Translation: I thank the Member for his question.]

The starting point for addressing illegal, unregulated and dangerous bonfires lies in the Chamber, and it demands political leadership. We need to be honest and say that the lack of regulation of bonfires just does not work. As political representatives, we cannot stay silent where there is a risk to health and safety and the environment, just as we cannot be silent when there are violent sectarian displays on bonfires.

Unfortunately, over the summer, we witnessed some bonfires that not only put public health and safety at risk and polluted our environment but were used to scapegoat migrants and promote hatred. A focus on safety and regulation in no way threatens or diminishes cultural celebration. If we are to continue to make progress towards a shared and better society, we need to learn lessons from the lack of regulation and look to regulation that places a focus on safety, public health and the environment.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I wrote to the office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister a few weeks ago to request that a task force be set up to investigate the impact of the aftermath of the Donegall Road bonfire and its potential impact on people's health in the area. Can I get a reply to that request and, hopefully, some action on it?

Aisling Reilly (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I will refer that to the First Minister and deputy First Minister for a response. The land that you referred to in your question is in private ownership, and that has been a significant factor. We understand that, to mitigate the risk of asbestos-fibre release from the pile and protect members of the public, NIEA undertook a number of safety measures at the site. It is anticipated that the NIEA will shortly establish a multi-agency group to consider the asbestos issues at the Donegall Road site. In response to the question, I will refer your request to the First Minister and deputy First Minister.

Cheryl Brownlee (DUP, East Antrim)

The junior Minister is keen to promote the success of T:BUC, a programme that brings together people from all our communities, yet the First Minister supported the decision of councillors in Londonderry to exclude our armed forces from a local jobs fair. How can the First Minister claim to be a "First Minister for all" when she supports and endorses no-go areas in Northern Ireland?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

That question is not related to the original question.

Junior Minister, if you do not mind, take your seat. I will move on to the next supplementary question, which is from Mark Durkan.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The delay in the development of the Meenan Square site by TEO facilitated further bonfire activity on the site over the summer. Hopefully, we will see progress there in the near future. While that might address where the fires are, we also need to address what is on them. Will TEO finally act on the FICT recommendations and introduce a framework that safeguards public safety and prevents the cycle of hate and lawlessness every year?

Aisling Reilly (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I thank the Member for that question. The vast majority of people celebrate their culture safely and respectfully and work really closely with our communities to make sure that bonfires are family-friendly and are enjoyed by all. However, a small number of unregulated and illegal bonfires raise concerns about safety and the environmental impact and have effigies and racist and sectarian hate all over them, and they need to be challenged.

We need to prioritise our work on good relations, particularly through the Executive Office and other Departments. We have a real opportunity here through the T:BUC review, which includes FICT, and through the Urban Villages initiative, which is being reviewed by the Executive Office, to build on what actually works, tackle the remaining issues constructively and create conditions in which celebrations are safe, respectful and for everyone.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

3. Mr Irwin asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for their assessment of the importance of engaging with leaders from other jurisdictions and Administrations in order to promote Northern Ireland. (AQO 2373/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Engaging with leaders from across these islands and internationally is very important if we are to promote this place and deliver across the full range of our Programme for Government ambitions. Since the restoration of the institutions, ensuring that we represent our interests and optimise the opportunities to grow a globally competitive and sustainable economy has been at the heart of everything that we have been doing. We have engaged with the Governments in London and Dublin to discuss how global developments, such as changes to international tariffs, could impact on our region and to ensure that our interests are understood and represented.

Over the past year, the deputy First Minister and I have met a range of leaders from the world’s largest economies, both at home and abroad. We have used meetings in the USA, China, Japan, Germany and France to promote our place and show that we are open to partnerships that support our economic growth. The deputy First Minister and I led a business delegation to North Carolina in March, supporting engagement by businesses and academia. This is a good example of how we can work in partnership with stakeholders here to deliver on our shared objectives and build lasting relationships that deliver benefits for all.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the First Minister for her response. The United States is a critically important economic partner of the UK. Will the First Minister outline what she gained by not attending the state banquet for President Trump last week?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I value our Irish-American links very much. Indeed, successive American Administrations have been very much part of bringing about our peace process, but you are referring to a banquet in Windsor last week that I chose not to attend, and rightly so: I do not see how a benefit would be achieved from attending a state banquet at a time when the children of Gaza are being starved to death. I made my view on that issue known. I did not block the deputy First Minister from attending. She went to the thing, and that was absolutely her call. I am very comfortable with my decision.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The First Minister will no doubt have seen the report that was issued through the UN Human Rights Council. It provides definitive confirmation that the Israeli state is engaged in genocide against the Palestinian people. Does the First Minister agree that the international community must take a principled stand against the ongoing genocidal attacks and the aid blockade against the people of Gaza?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Yes, I absolutely agree, because anyone with an objective mind, seeing how the situation continues to deteriorate in Gaza, will see it as completely unconscionable, intolerable and absolutely inhumane. How did we arrive at a position where women and children are being murdered daily and the international community stands by and does nothing? How did we arrive at a point where a man-made famine has been unleashed on an innocent population in Gaza with no repercussions? How are leaders of a state that is carrying out genocide allowed to be openly and unapologetically welcomed around the world?

This is the biggest humanitarian disaster of our generation. It is unfolding right in front of our eyes, yet Israel continues to act, to be let off the hook and, even worse, encouraged in some quarters. This cannot be described as a war: it is genocide. It is genocide, ethnic cleansing and state-directed killing. We all need to do everything that we can to end the horror for the Palestinian people, but that can only come about when the international community stands together and says no. We need to see an immediate ceasefire; we need to see humanitarian aid; we need to see a release of all prisoners and hostages; and we need to see an immediate end to that man-made starvation. That is where the focus of the international community must be in order to bring it to an end.

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

First Minister, I agree with your decision not to go to the banquet. It was the right thing to do. However, given the fact that there is, as you say, a genocide happening in Gaza and that democracy around the world, including, sadly, in North America and the United States, is under threat, what steps are you taking to ensure a broader, values-based international relations strategy for the Executive?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

That is the reasonable approach to take in the drafting of our new international relations strategy. We look on, aghast, at how people, particularly in London, have decided to wine and dine the president of the United States whilst his actions are clearly facilitating what is happening in Gaza. You cannot sell your soul for a pound. Any of us who have a soul and a heart would look at what is happening in Gaza and understand why we should not engage with those who are responsible for inflicting that horror and pain on the Gazan people.

Gary Middleton (DUP, Foyle)

4. Mr Middleton asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the development of Ebrington Square in Londonderry. (AQO 2374/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The investment in Ebrington aligns with the Executive's vision of building a strong, sustainable and regionally balanced economy. We are committed to investing in the north-west, and we are already seeing the positive outworkings of that commitment, including the expansion of Magee, the city deals and the projects that are being delivered as part of Urban Villages funding.

Specifically, since taking on the Ebrington site in 2016, the Executive Office has invested over £37 million to develop and regenerate it. The investment, along with £40 million of private finance, has been transformative for the site, attracting a variety of new businesses and creating more than 360 jobs. In March, we officially opened the new headquarters of software consultancy firm Alchemy Technology Services at the state-of-the-art Ebrington Plaza. A few months later, that was followed by Ernst & Young (EY) opening its new north-west regional office at the plaza. Even in the past week, there has been the Seagate announcement. The site has become a vibrant hub for creative, cultural, sporting, charitable and other community-led events. The Executive Office has also committed £3·3 million of funding towards the Derry North Atlantic Museum, which is a key part of the overall redevelopment of the square.

The junior Ministers are looking forward to visiting Ebrington later this week to see construction get under way on that important new regional visitor attraction. The Department will continue to work with tenants and stakeholders to showcase Ebrington, ensuring that it supports the region's rich creativity, innovation, talent and skills and plays its part in the site's future growth.

Gary Middleton (DUP, Foyle)

I thank the First Minister for her response, and I welcome the progress being made at Ebrington.

First Minister, where are discussions at with the council about the potential transfer of the Ebrington site to the council? What assurances has your office received that the site will remain a shared space? I have some concerns, given the track record of councillors, that that may not remain the case if it goes to the council.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Member is a representative of the north-west, and it is important to make sure that we underline the sheer scale of investment that there has been in the north-west recently. We should all be buoyed by that positivity.

You mentioned the site's being transferred to the council. That process has been ongoing for a considerable period. Realising the Ebrington site's full potential for the whole city and the north-west generally is a shared priority across multiple stakeholders in the north-west. We are focused on delivering on those shared ambitions and on improving processes and partnerships to achieve them. Discussions are ongoing with the council to progress the site's transfer. We are told that the full transfer is complex and is taking time to complete, but I can tell you that it is all in train and is being actively worked on.

Pádraig Delargy (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

First Minister, I thank you and the deputy First Minister for your recent attendance at Seagate and at Foyle port. I also welcome the north-west leadership collective, members of which are in the Public Gallery today, and recognise its fantastic work in the area.

What impact has the fact that the Executive have agreed a regional balance strategy had on driving investment and making Derry and the broader north-west an even more attractive place in which to live, work and invest?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Thank you for that question. I did not know that we had visitors from the north-west: you are very welcome.

Putting regional balance at the heart of the economic strategy here was a deliberate approach to ensure that we unlock the north-west's full potential and that investment is shared across the board. I sometimes listen to a lot of negativity, but there is so much positivity around the north-west right now. So many things have been and will continue to be delivered, including, even in the past number of months, the Seagate and EY announcements. We were at the Foyle port last week; its plans are also amazing and will make the area an even more wonderful place in which to live, invest and study.

I am determined to continue to work with all Ministers around the Executive table to see how we can deliver even more in the north-west, but the fact is that we have placed regional balance at the heart of the economic strategy. We saw the headlines last week that there is a 21% increase in the number of people applying to Magee. There has been more investment in Magee in the past year than there has been in the past 10 years. There is the city deal, the job announcements that I talked about and the investment in City of Derry Airport. The north-west is thriving. It is a real economic hub and an engine on which to be built even further.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

There is no regional balance for the north-west, and I do not know how to make that loud and clear. Last week in Belfast, a thousand jobs were announced, and we are getting the crumbs with the job announcements for Derry. That aside, you talked about the need for regional balance. Can you spell out exactly what that means in practice? What specific measures or indices have you built into strategies to ensure that there is real accountability to deliver regional balance and fairness in the North?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

For the first time ever, right at the heart of the Executive's economic strategy, regional balance is writ large. It is an objective for Invest NI, and we can very much see that starting to be borne out. I therefore encourage you to be more positive about what is being achieved in the wider north-west. Regional balance is now at the heart of Executive strategy. We have seen the increase in the number of applicants to Magee and the increase in investment, which I just mentioned. You may want to wish those developments away, but they are positive ones, and we will continue to build on them even more in the time ahead. I look at EY's announcement of 120 jobs and the announcement from Seagate last week of a £115 million investment in the north-west. Those announcements have been underlined by the largest ever Invest NI contribution towards research. That is regional balance in action. It is us delivering and doing things. That does not mean that we rest on our laurels. Those advancements are great, but we have much more to do. I will work with all Ministers to ensure that more is delivered for the north-west.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

Will the First Minister agree that, given that public money was invested in Ebrington Square, all lawful organisations, including the UK armed forces, should be welcome at events there?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

It is not really related to the question, but I will say that I have made my position clear on the jobs fair. I think that the locally elected councillors made the right call.

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

5. Mr McMurray asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the processing of applications to the Troubles permanent disablement payment scheme. (AQO 2375/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Junior Minister Reilly will answer that question.

Aisling Reilly (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

As of last week, 11,853 applications have been submitted to the victims' payments scheme. Payments totalling almost £108 million have been made to eligible applicants, offering meaningful recognition of the harm that they have suffered. The Victims' Payments Board is progressing applications as efficiently as possible and continues to work closely with victims and survivors' groups to make sure that any issues are flagged and addressed. Following a recent review of operations, the board has established a business transformation team to improve the processes. That has already had an impact on the value of awards paid out, which is reflected in the year-on-year increase in payments. There is, however, more work to do. We are also aware of the issues with the length of time that can be taken to reach a determination, but we are confident that the board is doing all that it can to make sure that applications are considered as quickly as possible.

With the scheme set to close to new applications in August 2026, we strongly encourage anyone who may be eligible to submit their application before that deadline. Support is available through a number of sectoral organisations, including WAVE Trauma Centre, the South East Fermanagh Foundation, Relatives for Justice, the Ely Centre and Ashton Community Trust, for anyone who needs help with the application process. I put on record our thanks to those groups, which offer tremendous support and advocacy for victims and survivors as they go through the process.

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

We are all dismayed at the recent reports of applicants having to wait for a long time for their application to be assessed. Will you please outline what additional resources will be allocated to try to speed up the processing of applications?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Junior Minister, you have less than a minute.

Aisling Reilly (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Thanks for that question. We completely understand the concerns that have been raised about the time that it is taking to process applications. Each application to the scheme is unique and comes with its own complexities, and the progress of applications can require additional or supporting information from external organisations. There are also some challenges with getting access to medical information, but our officials are working really closely with Department of Health colleagues to improve the process. Cases can also be adjourned in order to allow further information or evidence to be gathered to allow applicants or their representatives to comment on specific issues.

We are assured, however, that the board is keeping the processes under review in order to look for ways to improve the rate of flow of the cases. Also, on prioritising —.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Time is up.

Aisling Reilly (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Sorry.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Thank you. That ends the period for listed questions. We will now move on to 15 minutes of topical questions. Topical questions 2, 5 and 6 have been withdrawn.

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

T1. Mr O'Toole asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, particularly the First Minister, whether, given that the First Minister was elected to her role in a historic moment in the Chamber last February — historic because the state was founded in inequality, supremacy and top-dog politics — she agrees with Martin McGuinness, one of her predecessors, that we should abolish the absurd differential between the First Ministers' titles and return to something that is more like equality. (AQT 1561/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Member will know that that is under the remit of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, which is actively working through the matter. We all fought the election on the rules as they stand, and when we get to the point at which potential change is brought forward, under that Committee's remit, we can all make our choice about where we might go with it next.

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

First Minister, you are First Minister. I asked for your opinion. I did not ask what the AERC is doing. I am on that Committee, so I know.

The differential between those titles was born out of unionist insecurity, to be blunt, in 1998. It was a continuation of the top-dog supremacy politics of the Orange state that you and I both want to move away from. Do you agree with me and with yourself, because in 2020, you called yourself the joint First Minister, and with your predecessor, Martin McGuinness, that it is time to abandon that kind of top-dog politics and move toward a joint title?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I have made my position very clear to the Member. You are on the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, and that is the forum in which we can discuss those issues. I am the First Minister, there is a deputy First Minister, and it is a joint office. I have never shied away from that. I also used the joint office title previously. Let the AERC do its work. You sit on the Committee, so you are familiar with it.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Question 2 has been withdrawn.

Gary Middleton (DUP, Foyle)

T3. Mr Middleton asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, especially the First Minister, whether she wants the armed forces to "butt out" of all jobs fairs in Northern Ireland or just those that are in areas that are under nationalist control, given that, when taking up office, she said that she would be a "First Minister for all", but following the decision by councillors in Londonderry about the jobs fair, her commentary shows that she is unwilling to set aside party politics and show leadership. (AQT 1563/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Member will know that I have made my position on the matter clear. The democratically elected local councillors know best what is good in their own community. Given the history of the British Army in Derry, I stand over saying that I think that that was the right call for them to make about what happens at a jobs fair. If anybody wants to join any part of the British military, they can do so anywhere else. They can apply online or in whatever way they wish, but the sensitivities around Derry are not lost on people.

Gary Middleton (DUP, Foyle)

The First Minister has not answered the question. I asked whether that applies to all councils in Northern Ireland. First Minister, do you not see the hypocrisy of your commentary commemorating the victim makers while being unwilling to allow citizens in my community to engage with the armed forces in their council area? Do you not see the hypocrisy in that?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Do you not see the hypocrisy of going against the decision of the democratically elected local councillors? I back the councillors and their decision, because it was right and appropriate. You should also respect the council's decision, because it was taken in the best interest of the community.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

T4. Mr Gaston asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, but especially the First Minister, whether, given that she holds office in a Department with responsibility for equality and given that he has sought clarification from her about biological reality on a number of occasions in the Chamber and in Committee but she has refused to answer, she can clarify whether a woman can have a penis. (AQT 1564/22-27)

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

For God's sake. First Minister.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

That is absolutely ridiculous, and you are making a show of yourself. You are fascinated with the definition of a woman, and I think that that says a lot about you.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

At the weekend, the DUP leader rightly attacked those who refuse to accept biological reality, yet you head a Department alongside Mrs Little-Pengelly that retains its links with the discredited Stonewall organisation. Stonewall believes that a woman can have a penis. First Minister, once again, do you believe that?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I will have to help you out with a wee biology lesson. I was born a biological baby girl; I grew into a teenager; and I am now a fully fledged woman. There are also trans women in our community. If women can be supportive and inclusive of trans women, you should also. However, I fear, as the trans community fears, that all that you are interested in is stoking up fear, tensions and hurt. Have a bit of sensitivity and decency.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Topical questions 5 and 6 have been withdrawn.

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

T7. Mr Beattie asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, after welcoming the recent victims and survivors strategy 2024-2034, which refers on multiple occasions to a victim-centred approach to trauma and dealing with the past, whether they are able to give assurances to victims and survivors, given the Executive Office's engagement with the UK and Irish Governments on the new legacy commission, whether that legacy commission meets that clear objective of being victim-centred. (AQT 1567/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

As I said earlier, the framework was published only on Friday, so we do not yet understand what the legislative text looks like. We need to understand that. There will, of course, be a role for the Victims and Survivors Service in supporting all victims and survivors. We cannot engage on what the remit of the body is until we see what the legislative text says, but we will do so in due course.

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

Thank you for the answer. I am slightly concerned now. I would have imagined that, given that you, the deputy First Minister and the Executive Office created the victims and survivors strategy 2024-2034, you would have had sight of what the legislation will state and, therefore, would have been able to say, "This whole process" — I am talking about process, not legislation — "is victim- and survivor-centred".

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Being victim- and survivor-centred will be key to its success; I absolutely agree with you. However, the British Government chose to launch the framework jointly with the Irish Government last Friday. We see the framework, but there is then a period between that and seeing what the legislative text looks like in terms of the make-up and remit of the body and how it operates. We still have not had sight of that. I do not believe that anybody has. That is not good enough. They should have talked to us about it. I know that all parties would have engaged across the board, but the Executive Office should, of course, have been consulted. However, that falls at the feet of the British Government in terms of their approach.

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

T8. Mr Kelly asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether the First Minister will join him in commending the approximately 25,000 Gaels who took to the streets of Dublin at the weekend to highlight the issues facing Irish speakers. (AQT 1568/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Maith sibh.

[Translation: Good on you.]

It was really heartening to see the huge crowds in Dublin at the weekend. It shows the vibrancy of the Irish language community. Taking to the streets to march for equality and fairness across the board is a testament to the strength and the energetic revival of the Irish language here. Gaelic continues to thrive in communities across the island. However, as has been highlighted widely — this was the purpose of the large rally on Saturday — it needs much more investment North and South. It is also something to be celebrated. There can be no complacency or contempt from those in the Executive who have responsibility for its development. In that regard, I want to work with all parties and Executive colleagues to ensure that the Irish language is fully supported and allowed to flourish. We all have a clear duty to play a positive and proactive role in ensuring that the language grows for generations to come. We need to work together to make sure that we do that and to ensure that it is invested in.

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chéad-Aire as an fhreagra sin.

[Translation: I thank the First Minister for that answer.]

I think that the First Minister has already alluded to this, but will she do everything that she can to continue to commit to supporting the development of the Irish language? There is much more to do.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I totally agree that there is so much more to do in order to build on the huge strides forward and allow the language to grow. There are so many children being educated through the medium of Irish today. They want to see their language and to hear their language in the community in which they live. That ongoing revival and the vibrancy of the language and the culture is something to be celebrated. It creates huge opportunity as well for our society.

The appointment of the Irish Language Commissioner and the advancement of that role are imminent. The role that the commissioner will play in promoting the language and ensuring that it is protected across our public services in everyday life will be an important interjection to advance things. Belfast City Council is on the verge of adopting a transformative Irish language policy that will be the first of its kind in the North and will further improve the visibility of the language.

We can and must do more. We must keep working at it. We need to see an Irish language strategy being brought forward by the Communities Minister. Political will and genuine cooperation will be required to ensure that the language thrives for generations to come.

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

T9. Mr Brooks asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, given that, as has been noted by Invest NI, there is no indication of new companies investing in Northern Ireland as a result of supposed dual market access but there is growth in Northern Ireland's valuable aerospace and defence sectors, what they are doing globally for those businesses. (AQT 1569/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Dual market access is a prize that we need to grab together. The fact that we have access to both markets makes us the envy of many other places; in fact, there are companies that have, of late, pointed to dual market access contributing to their growth. That is positive. The Murphy report, which was published last week, states that we need to avail ourselves of and tap into that dual market access and to sell our wares. The heart of the economic strategy is very much the promotion of dual market access so that we continue to see its benefits in the time ahead. We need to work to support our industries across the board, and the Economy Minister is doing a great job in that regard.

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

At a vital time for that sector, the First Minister boycotted events on St Patrick's Day, boycotted the recent state banquet at Buckingham Palace and said that she was incredulous at the UK Government's recent investment in the sector. Does she think that that behaviour assists businesses to grow in Northern Ireland?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

It is important that we continue with all our business engagements. It is right and proper that we do so and that we have the message that we are open for business and that we are a great place in which to live, work and invest. That is our continued message when we engage with many. That is the appropriate approach from us, as an Executive Office, and from the Economy Minister.

I noted the engagement that we have had on investment with all international investors and with people who are big players from different countries. However, do not sell your soul for short-termism, going to banquets and sipping champagne whilst people in Gaza starve.

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

The answer is no, First Minister.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Excuse me.

Stephen Dunne (DUP, North Down)

T10. Mr Dunne asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the inquiry into mother-and-baby institutions and on the redress scheme. (AQT 1570/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Our work on that is ongoing. The Committee for the Executive Office is working its way through the legislation. It is a huge area, and we want to get it right. We are determined to do everything that we can to support all victims and survivors. I am glad to say that we are making some progress on erecting a plaque in the Great Hall. We made a commitment to do that and are hopeful that we will be able to do so in the autumn. That is another advancement in that area.

Stephen Dunne (DUP, North Down)

Is there any further update on the time frame for delivery for innocent victims across Northern Ireland through the redress scheme?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

We are working our way through the legislative process at the moment. The unique aspect of the scheme is that there will be two payments: one upfront payment and a payment that will come at a later stage after the public inquiry. That is unique compared with any other scheme, because it includes that first payment. It is important that we get that payment to victims and survivors as quickly as possible. They have been waiting for far too long to get to this juncture. We are determined to get that payment made as quickly as possible once the legislation has gone through the Assembly. I am hopeful that we will be able to make progress on that fairly soon.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

That ends the period for topical questions to the First Minister and deputy First Minister. Members should take their ease for a moment before we begin questions to the Minister for the Economy.

Oral Answers to Questions — Economy

Andy Allen (UUP, Belfast East)

1. Mr Allen asked the Minister for the Economy to outline the number of complaints received by the Northern Ireland Trading Standards Service in each of the past five years. (AQO 2386/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

My Department’s Trading Standards Service has received the following number of consumer complaints in each of the last five years: in 2020, 10,583; in 2021, 9,799; in 2022, 12,708; in 2023, 12,622; in 2024, 10,817; and, to date in 2025, 6,962.

Andy Allen (UUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for her response. A large volume of complaints are received each year by the Trading Standards Service. Will the Minister give her assessment of the effectiveness of the Trading Standards Service? How many of those complaints resulted in prosecution?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

The Department's Trading Standards Service delivers consumer protection and enforcement on the ground. It delivers a front-line public protection function for the benefit of our consumers, businesses and the wider economy. That function comprises the twin aims of protecting consumers, particularly the most vulnerable, from illegal and unfair trading practices and providing support and guidance for businesses, particularly small businesses, so that they can effectively deal with regulation. As the Member referred to, it can also undertake investigations when it receives complaints. Given the large number of complaints received, the mandate that Trading Standards Service has and the resources that it has, it is not possible to investigate every complaint that it receives or pursue every issue. It prioritises its work and focuses resources on the areas that will result in the greatest benefit to the economy. I do not have the number of prosecutions in front of me, but, if the Member writes to me, I am happy to share those.

Pádraig Delargy (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Minister, what laws are in place to protect consumers from unsatisfactory home improvement services?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Builders and those who provide home improvement services need to comply with a significant number of consumer protection laws. Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, consumers who enter into a contract for goods and services can expect those to be supplied with reasonable care and skill. That applies to all traders, whether builders, plumbers, decorators, electricians or whatever. The Act also requires that any materials used by any of those professionals should be of satisfactory quality, as described and fit for purpose. The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 protects consumers from unfair trading practices by prohibiting misleading actions and omissions, aggressive sales tactics and other unfair practices that distort consumer decisions. Any breaches of criminal consumer protection legislation can result in a trader being subject to enforcement by Trading Standards, including prosecution, with the courts having the power to fine or imprison offenders.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Question 2 has been withdrawn.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

3. Mr McGuigan asked the Minister for the Economy for an update on the closure of the non-domestic renewable heat incentive (RHI) scheme. (AQO 2388/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for his question. Earlier today, I announced the proposed way forward on RHI, following Executive approval on 18 September. My Department will now act swiftly to launch a public consultation and introduce the necessary legislation and regulations to give participants a tariff uplift for the coming winter. Following a period of extensive engagement with stakeholders, the consultation will now bring forward the details of how the scheme will be closed in a manner that is fair to both the participants and the taxpayer.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Obviously, my question was a wee bit outdated, given the Minister's statement this morning. Nonetheless, I welcome progress. Even though this may have been covered, Minister, when might a replacement scheme be in place, and how much annually managed expenditure (AME) funding will be available for it?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for his question. As I indicated in my responses earlier, the scheme itself is expected to cost up to £196 million AME over the 10 years, and then there is a departmental expenditure limit (DEL) resource cost alongside. That frees up approximately £100 million AME that, once the scheme has been closed, will be able to be used over the period for a scheme that is designed to effectively cut carbon. Once we have completed the RHI closure, we will move to design and bring forward a replacement. We will engage with Treasury on that basis.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I welcome the Minister's statement earlier, what she has said in answering the question and last week's announcement about the new renewables scheme. However, it is all developer-led. I have repeatedly asked for a Department plan to link all of that together to give confidence that we will move forward in a way that gives best value for money. Is there a plan, and when will we see it?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for his question. He makes an important point, because, as he will be well aware, a number of policy areas are being developed in tandem. That is being coordinated across the Department. We can ask officials to share something that points to what the Member wants to see.

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

4. Mr McGrath asked the Minister for the Economy for an update on the work of the local economic partnerships. (AQO 2389/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

The establishment of local economic partnerships is a new approach, bringing together my Department, Invest NI, councils and other key economic stakeholders in local areas. Overall, good progress has been made, and all 11 local economic partnerships have been established. There are varying levels of progress on the development of action plans. Four partnerships are very close to submitting action plans to the Department for approval, and others are holding workshops to develop ideas and proposals. We expect that progress on action plans will accelerate from this point.

The Member's local economic partnership at Newry, Mourne and Down District Council was the first to be established. The partnership has agreed an action plan, which is going through council approval processes and should be with the Department in the coming weeks for approval and issue of a letter of offer. I will be visiting Ards and North Down Borough Council on Thursday to hear more about its local economic partnership. I look forward to visiting more partnerships and seeing action plans progress. The Department and Invest NI will continue to work closely with the partnerships over the coming months to develop action plans that address local economic needs and ensure a collaborative approach.

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

It is good that the money will be pushed out across the North so that all areas can benefit. I asked your predecessor whether there were checks and balances in place in each council area to make sure that money is spread around across the council area. In my area, I want to see Downpatrick get its share rather than it simply going to Newry.

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for his question, and he makes a fair point. It is the responsibility of councillors in an area and all who are represented on the partnerships to ensure that there is a fair distribution across an area and that they target where they need to target for economic development. I guess that the checks and balances are built into the business case process, as you would expect, when issuing the letters of offer. They are probably slightly different checks and balances to those that the Member refers to, but there is the opportunity for areas to design economic plans, and local accountability needs to be layered on top of that.