Northern Ireland Assembly, 9 December 2025

458 contributions from 66 members. The official report.

Members' Statements

Órlaithí Flynn (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Today, I rise with a very heavy heart. This morning, my thoughts are with families across the island who are grieving someone who they have lost to suicide.

The latest NISRA figures on suicide are deeply troubling. They show that 290 deaths by suicide were registered in 2024. That figure is up from 221 in the previous year. To those who have lost someone to suicide, I express how sorry I am for what you have been through and for what you are still going through. I know that no statistic can ever capture the person whom you miss and you have lost.

The figures are based on the year that the deaths are registered, and delays in inquests can sometimes mean that some of the deaths that have been recorded happened in earlier years. While that explanation is important, it does not take away from the reality that too many lives are being lost in that way year after year.

Men remain much more likely to die by suicide, especially younger and middle-aged men. People living in our most deprived communities also face higher risk. Older people, often living alone, are particularly vulnerable, and we have seen that the rise in the latest NISRA statistics for 2024 has impacted more on our older population.

We are now moving into winter and towards Christmas. On the surface, it is a time of joy, lights and music, but, for many people, it is the darkest, loneliest, most pressurised time of the year. The cost of heating your home, the pressure to spend money that you do not have, empty chairs at a table that cannot be filled and anniversaries of loved ones who we have lost all sit in stark contrast to the positivity that we see on our screens and on our streets.

At a time when everywhere seems bright, many people feel completely in the dark. So, I ask Members and the wider public for something very simple over the weeks ahead: please be kind in the Chamber, online and in our communities. We rarely know what the person in front of us is dealing with or what they are carrying, and a harsh word can push someone further down. A small act of kindness can make it easier for them to hold on.

For anyone who is listening and might be finding it hard, please know that you can reach out to the Samaritans and to Lifeline. We cannot undo the loss that so many families have already experienced, but we can listen to them, learn from what they are telling us and try to do more to stop others going through that pain.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I rise this morning to recognise the contribution of my friend and DUP colleague William Irwin MLA from the Newry and Armagh constituency. As you will be aware, William has indicated his intention to step down from the Assembly at the end of the year, and it is fitting to mark that occasion.

William was first elected to Armagh City and District Council in 2005, prior to his election to the Northern Ireland Assembly in 2007. As a member of the class of 2007, William and the rest of us newbies learned our craft from the old hands. In what seems like a blink of an eye, we are the old hands.

As a farmer, William has agriculture in his blood. He earned the right to serve, from day one, on the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development and, later, the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. A true stalwart, William is the authentic voice of the rural community: the natural farmer's friend. Coming from an agricultural background, he has always been fiercely proud of those roots, and becoming Chair of the Committee was one of the highlights of his political career. He has also served with distinction as Deputy Chair of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure and the Deputy Chair of the Infrastructure Committee. He has been a stalwart for unionism in Newry and Armagh; a mantle that he has carried with unwavering principle, and, with that, he has earned the respect and affection of his constituents. His are big shoes to fill.

Yesterday, as a tribute, a colleague summed up William Irwin in two words: faithful and true. However, there are other words that can define William: tireless, loyal, generous, compassionate, quiet, diligent, effective, husband, father, grandfather, colleague and friend. It has always been a privilege to serve with and a pleasure to work with William. In the bitter world of local politics, where harsh words and insults are bandied about easily without any consideration of the consequences, one thing that stands out about William is that, in all the years that I have known him, he has never spoken ill of someone or fallen out with anyone.

On a personal note, I will miss William's friendship, loyalty, wit, advice and guidance in this place. He has been a fantastic help and support to me through my time in the Assembly, particularly on all matters rural. He is also one of those sensible heads that we all need when passions are high.

It is deeply sad that this day has come. After William's serving 20 years as a public representative in the council and the Northern Ireland Assembly and in recognition of his long service to his country and his party, I take the opportunity to mark that service properly and purposefully in the Chamber and to place on the public record my party's and my personal appreciation for William. "Retirement" is not a word in William's vocabulary; perhaps, more fittingly, it is simply about refocusing on his other priorities. Our loss is his wife, Olive's, gain. I wish William, Olive and his family every blessing in the future.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

As an MLA for South Belfast, I say a massive "Congratulations" to Royal Belfast Academical Institution (Inst) on winning the 2025 McCullough Cup schools hockey competition.

Last Thursday, Inst secured a superb 3-1 victory over Banbridge Academy in the final at Havelock Park, retaining the trophy that it won last year. Two goals from Josh Gill and a penalty from captain, Matthew McAreavey, sealed the win, with defender Riley Marney delivering a man-of-the-match performance at the back. That latest success means that Inst has now lifted the McCullough Cup for a record eighteenth time, extending its position as the most successful school in the history of that Ulster competition. It is also the first side to retain the title for a second year since Cookstown High School managed the feat in the 2010-11 and 2011-12 seasons. That is a remarkable achievement that speaks to the depth of talent and strength of the coaching set-up at the school.

I pay tribute to all the players whose commitment over many months and even years of training has culminated in this moment of well-deserved success. School sport is not just about trophies. It is about teamwork, resilience, learning to handle pressure and supporting one another in victory and defeat. The young people representing Inst have shown that all those qualities are present in abundance, and they showed that throughout the campaign. I also extend my congratulations to the coaching and support staff, the teachers who juggle academic responsibilities with time on the pitch and, of course, the parents and families who stand on the sidelines in all weathers. Their encouragement, lifts to training and constant support are crucial to making success such as this possible.

As a South Belfast MLA, I am particularly proud that the school, which has such strong links across our constituency, is setting the standard in schools hockey and providing positive role models for younger pupils, who will be inspired by that success. Through its long tradition of excellence in sport across hockey, rugby and many other disciplines, Inst continues to make an important contribution to life in the city and the health and well-being of our young people.

I also acknowledge Ulster Hockey and all those who are involved in organising the McCullough Cup and wider schools competitions. Their work ensures that our young people have access to high-quality competitive sport in a safe and supportive environment and helps to promote participation, inclusion and respect across schools and communities.

I wish the team every success as it continues its season.

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

A number of legacy reports will be released today. I thank those individuals who were responsible for conducting the investigations, which will, hopefully, give us the closure and information that we so desperately need.

Operation Denton was about investigating what was known as the Glenanne gang, a terrorist organisation that was responsible for over 120 murders of men, women and children. As a unionist, I stand here and say that I have absolutely no link whatsoever to those people. We know that they are a scourge on our society. They do not get any unionist support whatsoever. It is important to understand that. They killed mostly because of religion, including 34 people — men, women and children — in the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. Those who served in the security forces and were part of the Glenanne gang are an utter disgrace — a disgrace — to the uniform that they wore and those brave men and women who served alongside them and did so within the law. They can never be viewed as anything other than terrorists.

Operation Denton looked at the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, and although those involved cannot be named because of a legal challenge, the investigators have the names of those who were responsible. I wish that the Dublin Government could do something similar in regard to Omagh.

Operation Kenova was about the human intelligence source known as Stakeknife. Stakeknife murdered 18 people. Stakeknife did that. The nutting squad — the Disneyfication of violence in Northern Ireland is absolutely astounding — murdered 30 people. It was responsible for that. Some people will try to spin that and say, "Well, it was the UK security forces that did that", but let us be clear: of course, the security forces made mistakes, but the people who tortured and murdered others were part of that Disneyfied nutting squad, including the man who was called Stakeknife. Anybody who supported that or knew about it is also an utter disgrace. We know that there are people in a party in the Chamber who know information about it.

Operation Turma looks at the murder of three RUC constables in 1990, and Operation Mizzenmast looks at the murder of Jean Smyth-Campbell in 1972.

We will have those four reports to look at, but let us be clear: the people who pulled the trigger, those who sent them out and those who supported them are the ones who are responsible. Let us not allow anybody to redirect us, in any shape or form, from pointing the finger at the individuals who are responsible.

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

I will speak about a treasure of the Lecale coastline; a sentinel that has watched over generations and guided countless fishermen and sailors safely home: St John's lighthouse. It is the tallest lighthouse on the island of Ireland and one of the last to maintain that beautiful and iconic sweeping beam. It is a piece of engineering heritage that still performs its duty every night and is seen for miles around.

At its heart is the Bourdelles rotation system, which rests on mercury-based bearings that are designed to allow the lens to glide with frictionless precision. That system has stood the test of time: it is remarkably efficient and remains in working order. Yet plans are now in place from the Commissioners of Irish Lights to remove that system and replace it with metal-on-metal roller bearings, despite the planners rejecting such a proposal in 2018.

The proposal is fundamentally flawed. It may be called modernisation, but it is a step backwards in engineering. It introduces friction, noise and wear into a mechanism that is currently smooth, silent and reliable. I will be clear: a noisy, mechanical system being introduced into a quiet coastal environment will be disruptive to local wildlife, particularly marine and nocturnal species.

As if that were not enough, the proposal includes replacing the current lamp with a static LED. That is not progress; it is the removal of the lighthouse's character, identity and purpose. LED systems are prone to faults. They alter the visual signature that mariners depend on, and they carry well-documented ecological impacts that have been disastrously overlooked by the historic environment division during the planning process. What we have at present works and works safely. The sweeping beam is one of the last of its kind and is a living link to our maritime history. To extinguish it now would be an act of professional cultural vandalism. Instead of recognising the enormous potential of St John's Point lighthouse as a world-class tourist attraction, we face plans that would diminish it.

I acknowledge the extraordinary work of the Lecale Lightkeepers community campaign group — some of them are here today — which stands in defence of the sweeping beam. We owe it to the Lecale Lightkeepers, to our fishing community, to our heritage and to the generations yet to come to ensure that St John's Point lighthouse remains what it has always been: a true beacon. Once the beam has gone, it will be gone forever. We will never get another chance to protect it.

Declan Kearney (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Where is Moneyglass? That is the question on the lips of many sports journalists in the aftermath of the Moneyglass senior ladies footballers' winning their All-Ireland semi-final nine days ago. Well, Moneyglass is a cluster of townlands in the south-west of County Antrim, beside the River Bann and adjacent to Lough Beg. It is a small place with just a few hundred residents. There is Boyd's garage and shop; Tumbledown bar; one chapel; a small community centre; and a large number of small family businesses and farms.

The beating heart of Moneyglass is St Ergnats GAC. Formed in 1948, the club has a strong tradition in an Cumann Lúthchleas Gael

[Translation: the Gaelic Athletic Association.]

That is reflected in the men's footballers' participation and score and in underage development for young boys and girls. However, ladies Gaelic football is one of the club's huge successes. The club has enjoyed great progress in recent times. New facilities have been opened on Loughbeg Road. The men won the 2025 Intermediate Club football final. Furthermore, the club has elected its first female chairperson, Sarah McCann. In a special, personal first for Sarah, in the past few weeks, she qualified with a doctorate in education, specialising in climate change and sustainability.

The crowning glory of 2025, however, will be this weekend's All-Ireland Club final. Not surprisingly, local excitement is at fever pitch. Everybody is up to high doh. In my book, whatever happens this Saturday in Croke Park, the Moneyglass women are already winners. The footballers will travel to Croke Park as pride of the parish, queens of the county and champions of Ulster. Those girls are a credit to their families, their friends and all of us, and I wish them all the luck that they deserve in the All-Ireland final this Saturday. Give it your all, girls. Leave it all on the pitch. Ádh mór oraibh. Tapaigí an deis. An Muine Glas abú.

[Translation: Good luck to you. Seize the opportunity. Moneyglass forever.]

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

To begin with, I join Members in offering my colleague William Irwin every best wish for his retirement alongside his family. He truly is the authentic friend of the farmer. He spoke with such conviction and passion in representing those people across Northern Ireland, probably long before it was popular to do so in the House. He certainly will be missed in this place, and I wish him well for his retirement.

Our Executive are meeting, next door, to grapple with the huge budgetary pressures that face core Departments such as Education and Health. I will offer not only an observation but a clear warning: the benefits system is killing the United Kingdom. Its stranglehold is getting tighter year-on-year. The Chancellor's autumn Budget made one thing unmistakably clear: taxes are being driven to record highs, not to invest in growth or to strengthen our public services but to prop up an outdated, unsustainable and inflated welfare system.

Total spending on social security and welfare in the United Kingdom has gone from £152 billion in 2005 to £326 billion in 2025. The Office for Budget Responsibility predicts that that will rise to £406 billion by 2030. Yes, Members, we value those who cannot fend for themselves and who, due to health needs or injury, need support; we are a generous nation, but the system is open to corruption and abuse. In Northern Ireland alone, benefit fraud is estimated to cost as much as £350 million per year. That is a national shame. That is money that cannot be spent on core public services; the taxpayer has been cheated of that money. That must be addressed. Money that should be used to support our hospitals, our schools and our police is being taken directly from those core services in order to fund cheats.

In Northern Ireland, we have the additional pressure of an accommodation system for the likes of asylum seekers that has ballooned. Across the United Kingdom, the cost is projected to balloon from £4·5 billion to £15·3 billion over a decade. That is more than triple the initial estimate. Our constituents ask us why taxes are going up, why we cannot help to support businesses by reducing VAT and other taxes and why we are not supporting and standing up for the working middle — alarm-clock United Kingdom — who get up in the morning and work two or three jobs but simply cannot afford to live. Why can we not do that? It is because we have an outdated benefits system that is being abused.

Michelle Guy (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Every MLA in the Chamber is aware of the Caleb's Cause NI campaign through the advocacy of Caleb's mum, Alma, but, at the recent session of the Disabled People's Parliament, Caleb spoke for himself. It was a powerful and moving moment when every one of us was asked to keep using our voices to support the cause of post-19 SEN reform. These are Caleb's words:

"My name is Caleb. I am 17 years old. When I get older, I want to be an inventor. When I leave special school, at 19, my options will be limited. I want a lifelong care plan to allow me to fulfil my potential and achieve my dreams. My friends and I, along with many others, want to be seen, heard and included in your world. We want laws to give us a future. We are human beings, just like you. Executive Ministers and Departments, you all can choose to help me and so many others in this mandate. My question is, will you?"

If Members have not watched that online clip of Caleb, they should. It really is a powerful moment when he looks up and asks that question.

Investing in kids such as Caleb is not a waste of our time. They are not lost causes. We know that, if we invest in the right support at as early a stage as possible, they can thrive, contribute and inspire. As MLAs, we must keep advocating not just for them but with them. Let me assure you that Caleb's Cause will not stop until every one of our post-19 children is cared for.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Tabharfar an ráiteas seo as Gaeilge. Dá bhrí sin, impím ar Chomhaltaí atá gan Ghaeilge a gcluasáin a chur orthu.

Déanfar Lá Chearta an Duine a chomóradh an tseachtain seo. Is é téama an lae i mbliana "Cearta an Duine, Ár mBunriachtanais Laethúla". Tá sé seo thar a bheith ábhartha, nó sheas mé sa tSeomra tá seachtainí beaga ó shin agus labhair mé ar a thábhachtaí a bhí an Coinbhinsiún Eorpach um Chearta an Duine agus an ról luachmhar a d’imir sé anseo in Éirinn agus mé ag comóradh 75 bliain ó bunaíodh an coinbhinsiún. Tá páirtithe polaitíochta áirithe sa Bhreatain ag rá gur chóir an Ríocht Aontaithe a tharraingt amach as an Choinbhinsiún Eorpach um Chearta an Duine, cinneadh a rachadh go holc do gach aon duine ar an oileán seo.

Cé go leanann na díospóireachtaí sin ar aghaidh sa Bhreatain, tá sé tábhachtach againne cuimhneamh ar an méid a chumasaigh an coinbhisiún anseo agus an méid sin a chosaint. Bhí ionchorprú an choinbhinsiúin sa dlí riachtanach le cearta saoránach a chosaint agus le muinín a chothú i gComhaontú Aoine an Chéasta. Cuireadh béim ar thábhacht an choinbhinsiúin sa chomhaontú um tharraingt siar i ndiaidh an Bhreatimeachta. Is maolú ríthábhachtach lenár síocháin agus ár rathúnas a chosaint i bhfianaise pholasaí díobhálach Rialtas na Breataine é. Rinneadh ionsaithe eile ar chearta, agus tá reachtaíocht sceimhlitheoireachta na Breataine ag gabháil faoi chearta fosta.

Ba é an rud a bhí Rialtas na Breataine ag iarraidh a dhéanamh i gcás Kneecap ná srian a chur ar an chead cainte; sa chás sin, féachadh le lucht cáinte chinedhíothú Iosrael in Gaza a chur ina dtost. Ach d’éirigh le Rialtas na Breataine sárú ar cheart cruinnithe lucht agóide agus chuaigh ag Rialtas na Breataine cosc a chur ar Palestine Action. Léiríonn an dá shampla sin an gá atá le cearta a choinneáil agus a chosaint. Ach ab é an Coinbhinsiún Eorpach um Chearta an Duine, níorbh ann do phróiseas na síochána; agus ach ab é an Coinbhinsiún Eorpach um Chearta an Duine níorbh fhéidir próiseas na síochána a choinneáil ag gabháil. Trí chearta uilíocha agus comhionannas a leabú sa dlí, leanann sé de bheith ag tacú leis an athmhuintearas agus leis an chobhsaíocht dhaonlathach.

Seo iad ár mbunriachtanais —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member’s time is up.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

— laethúla. Tá siad le cosaint. Tá siad le ceiliúradh.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

Before I begin my statement, I will also put on record my party's best wishes to William Irwin, who is retiring in a few weeks. I spoke to him briefly yesterday, and it is clear that he is looking forward to retirement. I wish him all the best. He really is a kind soul, so I hope that he can enjoy his retirement.

Mr Speaker, all politics is local. In May this year, I presented to you a public petition signed by hundreds of people in the North Belfast community asking for a pedestrian crossing. That might not seem important to everyone, but, for the people who have to cross the road at the roundabout on Prince Charles Way every day, most of whom are schoolchildren going to and from school, it is very important. The safety of our children going to and from school and of all those walking on that road and getting about their day is important to us all.

I say again that all politics is local, because we can have successes sometimes, but they are often too slow in coming. Following that public petition, we had another visit from the Department for Infrastructure, which carried out a full survey of the site, and works on the roundabout have now been approved. However, that has also come with the caveat that the works will be budget-dependent. I understand that all Departments are under pressure with their resources.

When we passed the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, a successful Alliance amendment secured the provision saying that 10% of the transport budget should be spent on active travel. At the minute, however, we are not seeing that budget being spent on active travel; instead, we see it being repurposed for other areas. I call on the Infrastructure Minister — I will ask her about this later during questions for oral answer — to prioritise the safety of local schoolchildren to ensure that they can get to and from their school, walking or cycling, by using a pedestrian crossing. People's voices have been heard and listened to, but we need to finalise that and take action and ensure that we install a safe pedestrian crossing.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Members, I have three more requests to make statements, and I think that I have three minutes for that. However, I am in a generous mood today because it is coming up to Christmas, so I will include everybody, even Mr Carroll. I will have to listen to your statement as well.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Since abortion was decriminalised through the legislation imposed on the Province as part of the package that facilitated the return of Stormont, the number of abortions carried out has risen year on year. We now know that, between 2020 and 2024, more than 8,000 lives were taken through abortion in Northern Ireland.

An answer that I received yesterday from the Finance Minister raises further questions. In response to my question asking how many death certificates had been issued for babies who were born alive after an abortion procedure, the Minister stated that a search of death registrations for the category of termination of pregnancy affecting fetus and newborn identified 32 deaths up to the end of 2024 where that cause was recorded on the death certificate as either contributory or underlying. We should all reflect on what that means. Those were living children, infants who had taken their first breaths. They are 32 little boys and girls whose deaths were officially recorded as being affected by a termination of pregnancy. Whatever the circumstances leading to those procedures, whether elective or in situations where the mother's health or life was in danger, the stark fact remains that those children were born alive and, sadly, later died. Each one represents a tragedy.

The headline statistics demonstrate that the way that the issue was framed by many media outlets before the change in the law was deeply dishonest. We were told repeatedly that legal change was required for so-called hard cases, yet 8,000 abortions in four years did not occur because of the exceptional situations promoted by those with an anti-life agenda.

As abortion becomes more common, it is anything but compassionate to ignore the social pressures — economic, familial and cultural — that push women towards ending a pregnancy. A genuinely humane society would champion the truth that every human life is worthy of protection. I commend organisations such as Precious Life and the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, which continue to do that. It remains my deep conviction that abortion is the greatest moral evil of our lifetime. While others may prefer to look the other way, I will ensure that no one can say that they were unaware of the quiet holocaust taking place in our Province.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Chomhairle. Tá sin iontach cinéalta. Nollaig shona duit.

Ba mhaith liom cúpla focal gasta a rá faoi rud a bhí ar siúl ag an deireadh seachtaine in Iarthar Bhéal Feirste. Tá moladh mór tuillte ag na daoine sin ar fad a d’eagraigh Scoil Gheimhridh Ghearóid Uí Chairealláin — bhí an-rath ar fad uirthi.

Ba cheannródaí teanga agus pobail é Gearóid Ó Cairealláin. Bhí sé mar chuid de ghrúpa Gaeilgeoirí a bhunaigh an Chultúrlann. Bhunaigh siad an nuachtán Lá, Raidió Fáilte agus, ar ndóigh, Meánscoil Feirste. D’fhág Gearóid lorg ollmhór ar an Ghaeilge ó Thuaidh. Is tábhachtach an rud é Scoil Gheimhridh a bheith ann a thabhairt ómos dó.

Bhí plé breá ann ar an iriseoireacht, ar an ghníomhaíochas, agus ar an teanga. D’fhreastail mé féin ar chuid de na himeachtaí Dé hAoine, agus tá taispeántas an-suimiúil ann thuas staighre sa Chultúrlann. Bhí spiorad Ghearóid le mothú an deireadh seachtaine ar fad. Arís eile, comhghairdeas mór le gach duine a d’eagraigh an scoil.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your grace. I thought that, in your generosity, you had discovered the Christmas Carroll there.

[Laughter.]

I speak about an event that I attended this morning, a collective healing through honouring our loved ones. It was a meeting to launch a report on all the people who died during the pandemic and the lockdowns. The process of grieving was explored with the individuals who took part in the study, and a question was asked whether the individual felt that they were able to grieve the passing of their loved one. While 17% stated that they could, 55% reported that they had not been able to do this and 28% were unsure. Self-reported mental health rates revealed that 56% described it as either "poor" or "very poor". Some 32% stated that it was "average", while the remaining 12% gave their mental health a rating of "good" or "very good". When asked about receiving support following the person's death, a large proportion, 37%, indicated that this was not offered to them. For those who got support, the source of this was largely family, 40%, or friends, 15%. That included 80% who reported that they did not get the support needed for the grief that they experienced during the pandemic and lockdowns.

The conclusions from the report include that a number of salient themes were evident through a review of responses on both the survey and from the support session evaluations. The most prominent of those themes was the traumatic impact of experiencing a death during the pandemic. That was impacted by the systematic and structural restrictions enforced by the Government in the management of the pandemic. The absence of opportunities to have traditions associated with death and dying, whether religious or cultural in nature, was cited often in the feedback. Saying goodbye to loved ones or being present during their final moments was not available to the majority of respondents. Those psychological and emotional omissions were described as having a significant toll on the individual and the family, amplified by the variations in manner and tone of communications or interactions with professionals at the time of the loved one's death.

Those people seek a physical memorial through which their loved ones who died in the pandemic and during the lockdown should be remembered, but the greatest memorial that we can give those people is that never again will our people, communities and society be locked down as they were during the pandemic.

Ministerial Statement

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I wish to make a statement to the Assembly regarding my plans to bring forward a new Executive disability strategy for Northern Ireland.

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

Around one in four people in Northern Ireland experience some form of disability, and it is fair to say that we are all impacted to some extent. Everyone’s experience of living with disability is unique, and so any new strategy needs to be able to flex to accommodate the often complex and unique interventions that are to be managed. Through the sharing of lived experience by deaf and disabled people and by our commissioning of bespoke research, the disability strategy demonstrates that we have taken account of the issues raised by deaf and disabled people, the expert advisory panel, the co-design group, the cross-departmental working group and many other stakeholders during significant engagement processes. The disability strategy vision, outcomes, principles and terminology and language used are all a product of that extensive engagement process, and the strategy commitments are broadly reflective of the wishes of the sector.

The strategy represents further delivery against our Programme for Government (PFG) commitments. It also intersects with a range of strategic agendas such as the anti-poverty strategy, the autism and mental health strategies, my Department’s disability and work strategy and the review of special educational needs (SEN) provision. In co-producing the disability strategy, we have placed people with lived experience of disability at the centre, involving them at every stage to ensure that we have identified and shaped the change needed to achieve better outcomes.

We have a wealth of experience in our voluntary and community sector, and we know that its insight and value cannot be overstated. In developing the disability strategy, we have carried out many engagement events with individuals and organisations that represent the deaf and disabled community. Those events were delivered online and in person. Special efforts were made to engage with those who can often be the hardest to reach in Northern Ireland, including minority ethnic communities and the Travelling community. Those marginalised yet often inspirational people freely contributed their lived experience and ideas to my officials. I want to tell them this: your views were valued greatly. You were not only heard but, more important, listened to.

From an early stage of the engagement, it was apparent that a number of key asks were coming from across the sector about what it wished to see in a new disability strategy. I wish to cover some of those asks briefly and how we intend to deal with them through the new strategy.

First, there was a universal desire to establish a Northern Ireland disability forum wholly comprised of deaf and disabled people and having a role in supporting the monitoring and reporting processes involved with any new disability strategy. I can announce today that the strategy commits my Department to establishing a Northern Ireland disability forum to monitor the actions included in the strategy. The forum's membership will be made up entirely of deaf and disabled people, with my officials providing secretarial support. The forum will also link in with the Department of Health's existing regional disabled people's health and social care forum as appropriate and will be able to engage with all Departments on their responsibilities in the strategy. I have also taken steps to ensure that forum membership will be fully representative of our community. For example, places will be reserved for young people who have not yet had the life opportunities or lived experience to be able to demonstrate the academic credentials or experience that normally indicates suitability for a place on such a body.

We were also told of the desire to see reform of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which, stakeholders believe, is no longer fit for purpose. I, too, believe that there is a clear case for the review and potential reform of disability law here. The Disability Discrimination Act is 30 years old. There is a clear gap between the legislative protections available to disabled people here and those in, for example, Great Britain, where the Equality Act 2010 is in force. I can also announce today that scoping work is under way in my Department with a view to the full incorporation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) into domestic law. That, of course, will require additional funding across Departments, but I am sure that we can all agree that it is the right thing to do.

The strategy is constructed around eight outcomes. During the lifetime of the strategy, there will be continuous monitoring of its delivery. Those outcomes will ensure that deaf and disabled people can effectively exercise their rights and fundamental freedoms and participate in society on an equal basis, free from discrimination; that they can access our built environment, facilities and transport on an equal basis; that, across our public services, government information and communications will be provided on an equal basis; that they can access and participate in culture, leisure activities and sport on an equal basis; that they can live independently in the community with choice and control, with a sufficient and sustainable standard of living; that they can have access to quality health and social care on an equal basis and without discrimination; that they can access, sustain and progress in quality employment in an inclusive labour market; and that deaf and disabled children and young people can exercise their rights and reach their full educational, social and developmental potential.

Once it is approved in final form by the Executive, the disability strategy will run for a 10-year period from 2025 to 2035. It will be underpinned by an action plan that will contain a range of time-bound, measurable actions targeted at progressing the strategy outcomes and commitments. The action plan will be monitored, reviewed and updated annually, with published progress reports that will be agreed by the Executive.

A formal midpoint review will allow for the strategy to be assessed, taking account of the annual reports on the action plan. That review will provide an opportunity for the strategy's commitments to be reviewed, amended, removed or added to if necessary. The strategy's impact will be measured through the delivery of actions in the action plan and progress against agreed indicators and outcomes.

We have worked closely across Departments to commit to the actions in the strategy, and the Executive have given it their endorsement. We must continue to work together to ensure that, collectively, we achieve better outcomes for deaf and disabled people. I will be launching a minimum 12-week public consultation on the disability strategy. That wide-ranging conversation with society provides an opportunity for everyone to contribute their views and highlight any areas that can be strengthened further. In addition to being able to engage in the consultation online, we will be hosting a series of roadshow events across Northern Ireland, at which people who attend can engage with officials. Naturally, all documents will be available in a range of accessible formats to make it as easy as possible for everyone to contribute to the consultation. I encourage as many people as possible to take part in the consultation. I place on record my sincere thanks to everyone who has taken the time to share their experiences and suggestions.

Taken in conjunction with the recent launch of my Department's disability and work strategy, today's announcement signifies my commitment to the deaf and disabled community and a step change from the Northern Ireland Executive in delivering for deaf and disabled people, their families and their carers.

I commend the statement to the House.

Some Members

Hear, hear.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for the statement. It is welcome to hear some of the progress that has been outlined today on the new disability strategy. We look forward to hearing of similar progress on the other social inclusion strategies for which the Minister is responsible.

The statement refers to the potential reform of disability law. Will the Minister give us a flavour of what that might be, and how he intends to bring forward any such reforms? What time frame are we talking about? Is it realistic to expect that any such reform will be done in the remainder of this mandate?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

We are going to start that work now. Some people think that we in Northern Ireland should replicate the Equality Act 2010, but, as I said, key stakeholders in the disability sector do not believe that it is fit for purpose. One of the reasons that it is important that we put the disability forum in place is that we will hear views from people before that legislation is drafted. I want that forum to be set up and for it to feed into the process. The legislation can then be brought forward. If any legislative changes can be made during the rest of the mandate, we will certainly do that, but the Member will be aware of how long it takes legislation to progress. If that is not possible, I want to make sure that we are well placed to introduce fit-for-purpose legislation at the start of a new mandate.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for the statement. It is a very important strategy. The incorporation of the UNCRPD is an important factor. You have dealt with some of that already, Minister.

You stated that many Departments will have a role in delivering the strategy. Who will hold those Departments to account if progress stalls, and who will report to the Assembly if commitments are not met? How will you ensure that the regional forum, which is very welcome, has real teeth and is not simply an advisory body?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I had a meeting last week with some people representing the disability sector. The points that I made to them will answer the Member's question. First of all, it will be for Ministers to bring forward actions, and they need to be held to account on those actions. I hope that the Assembly and its scrutiny Committees will do that for individual Ministers. During my time in office, I will certainly make sure that I hold other Ministers to account, and that we put proper priority on delivering things that will be of benefit to deaf and disabled people.

Last week, I made it clear to the group that the forum is not simply a tick-box exercise for me. I have not simply put a few deaf and disabled people on the group as a token; the group will comprise deaf and disabled people entirely. I expect them to be very forthright in holding Ministers and the Department for Communities to account. I want them to do that, and I know that they will. We will certainly look at how it is structured to make sure that we can do that effectively. Ultimately, we should all want to deliver, and we need to be held to account on that.

Cheryl Brownlee (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for bringing the statement to the House. This is a huge day for the deaf and disabled community, and I really welcome his statement. Minister, it is a time-bound issue. When will the strategy be finished, and when can people expect delivery on the ground?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The time frames will depend on the responses that we get to the public consultation. I will go back to Executive colleagues so that they can look at the recommendations that come through during the consultation process. The Executive will then consider what can be put into the final strategy and the action plans that can come from that. That will take some time.

We do not have definitive timescales, but it is important to note that, even in the absence of the strategy, we have not been found wanting in getting on and delivering for deaf and disabled people in Northern Ireland, whether that is through the disability and work strategy; the Sign Language Bill that is progressing through the House; the JobStart programmes that we have been able to put in place; what we are doing in housing, in particular with the disabled adaptations and grants that we make available; lobbying the Government on some of the disgraceful changes that they announced on support for disabled people; or the many other issues. Although it will take some time to progress the strategy, it is important that we do it right and that we deliver for deaf and disabled people in the meantime, and I will certainly do that.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

Thank you, Minister. I must declare an interest as a member of the deaf community. The statement is very welcome. We have been waiting for the strategy for quite a while. I am a little bit concerned at the timing of it, given that the multi-year Budget is coming up. In the sign language legislation, it says that, without doubt, Departments can take into consideration affordability when deciding about reasonable adjustments. Have you had any discussions with your Executive colleagues on the amount of money that they should be setting aside in their multi-year budgets to deliver the eventual outcomes of the strategy?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Of course, it is hard for us to put a price tag on that because we are just going out to consultation. We will hear people's views, and that is when we will decide the specific actions to implement as an Executive. Ministers will be aware that the strategy is coming forward. They will not necessarily be aware of all the actions that they may be required to take, but sufficient budgetary processes are there, and they should be thinking ahead about what needs to be done. If necessary, the Executive should allocate additional funding for that purpose. It is a little bit hard for us to be final on it until we know what will be in the final strategy and the action plans that will follow. However, we absolutely should be prepared to allocate money to it, where possible.

We should see the strategy as an investment. We should not see it as money that we have to put into something; we should see how it can generate a return for us. I made this point in the House yesterday: taking the disability employment rate from 40% to 50%, as it is in the rest of the UK, for example, has the potential to generate savings of around £750 million a year. Helping deaf and disabled people can actually bring an economic return as well, so we should not see the strategy just as money that we spend but rather as an investment.

Andy Allen (UUP, Belfast East)

I, too, declare an interest as a member of the disabled community. Minister, I thank you for getting the strategy to this point. However, many in the disabled community have highlighted to me the fact that the previous iteration of the strategy, 2012-15, which was extended to 2017, did not deliver the tangible benefits for the disabled community that it desired to do. Minister, how can you ensure that this strategy will deliver real and tangible benefits for the disabled community; and, if I may ask, when did the scoping work on disability law reform commence?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

It is important to highlight that that is why we will have the regional disability forum: to make sure that the strategy that we have and the actions that we put into the action plan are necessary and deliverable and that we are held to account on them. I am more than happy for us to subject ourselves to that scrutiny, because I do not want this to be a wasted opportunity; I want to do something that actually makes a difference, is tangible and has the right outcome. That is why I am committed to doing that and why the forum has such a key role. As I have said, I do not want that to be a tick-box exercise. I genuinely want to get that feedback, input and monitoring and to be held to account by that group.

Danny Baker (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Recent statistics show that 38% of households living in poverty include a person with a disability, which highlights disability as a real risk factor that can contribute to a person's falling into poverty. What new measures aimed at tackling disability-related poverty will flow from the strategy?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The Member is absolutely right to raise the issue, because we see time and again that disability is a huge factor that impacts on poverty. That is why we have 58 commitments in the strategy, many of which will directly impact on that and some of which will have an impact in other ways. There are a number of ways in which we can make a difference. One of the first key actions will be the collection and increased availability of data. A problem that we have had in the past is this: if we do not have the data, it is hard to put the policies in place to make a difference.

A number of other things that we are doing will also tackle poverty. It is often related to isolation, so, for example, there are ways in which we can make sure that people in urban and rural settings have access to transport. Other issues include communication, which is why it is so important that we have introduced the sign language legislation. We will implement the disability and work strategy because we know that one of the best routes out of poverty is through work. We have to make sure that people have jobs, that they have the ability to travel to them and that they get the reasonable adjustments that they need.

We know that participation in the arts and in sport is also a contributing factor in helping to deal with poverty, and the strategy includes that. It is also about making sure that people have suitable accommodation; housing is another key commitment in the strategy. All those things together can help us to tackle poverty, along with, of course, improved access to health and social care. That is why it is important that we have a joined-up approach and why the strategy will help us to deal with poverty.

Pam Cameron (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his very welcome statement on the launch of the public consultation on the Executive's disability strategy. Does the Minister have any plans for reform of the disability legislation in Northern Ireland?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Yes, absolutely. That was a key ask and is one that we will deliver on. That work is starting now. It will require significant resource, because the existing disability legislation is extremely complex, but we have to see that as an opportunity to create meaningful and lasting improvements in the lives of deaf and disabled people. Any new disability legislation would be a positive measure but would also be cross-cutting; we would need to collaborate across Departments and then get Executive agreement. I am committed to doing that because that is what the sector tells us that it needs, and listening to it on those issues is important.

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for the very welcome statement; I am delighted to see that step towards my colleague Danny Donnelly's Member's Bill on the UNCRPD. Will the Minister give an idea of the timeline? What will come first? A wee bit of clarity would be useful on whether the recruitment for the disability forum will happen first or the actions will all happen alongside one another. I really welcome the disability forum, which is a great idea — we have to put people at the heart of the policies that matter to them — but how will the forum members be recruited? What will the process be, and how will the Minister ensure that the forum is fully representative?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The specific details are still being worked out. The Member raises an important issue, however, because we want to make sure that the forum will be fully representative of the sectors and individuals that need to be on it, and I have stated that it will be.

As for timelines, we can do some preparatory work now, but we are keen to have the forum in place to feed into some of the changes that we want to see. At the very most, I would expect it to be created and in place within 12 months. That is very long-term, so I want to pull that back as much as I can and have the forum in place as soon as possible. The furthest away would be 12 months, but I hope that we can pull it forward, and I have instructed officials to do that.

Maolíosa McHugh (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Minister, we live now in an ageing society, and, clearly, I am also well in that ballpark. As the society ages, it is more likely that many people will suffer from a disability of one form or another, and, as a result, the demand for disability adaptations and the like will increase. The facilities grant is already struggling to cope with demand, so when will the review of that grant be completed? Will its recommendations be implemented by 2027?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The Member is right to highlight that issue. It is important that we have the resources in place. It is also important that we take action now to make sure that people do not find themselves in the situation that the Member described due to ageing and that we have as healthy a population as possible. The Member will be aware of the significant investment that we put into those issues. It would certainly be inappropriate for me to comment right now, but I hope that we will have further good news on that later today. However, we certainly need to make the most effective use of our resources, which is why that work is being carried out. I will update the Member accordingly.

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for his statement progressing a new disability strategy. A disability forum has been long called for by the deaf and disabled community, and I welcome its inclusion in the statement. The Minister said that he is aiming for it to be in place in 12 months. Will he provide details of the recruitment process for those who would be keen to get involved?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The Member is right to highlight the fact that I want the forum to be in place as soon as possible; in fact, we have already had quite a bit of interest from those who have volunteered their services. Obviously, we still need to go through the consultation process, getting final agreement from the Executive and putting it out there. I will make sure that we do as much of that preparatory work as possible, and we will inform people of what it will entail. As I said in my statement, the forum will be different from any of the other bodies that have been set up. For example, we are not asking for some of the professional or life experience that some may have required for other roles. Instead, we are trying to make sure that we get as wide a range of views as possible, because it is important that we have expertise and representation from all sectors. That is what I am determined to do, and we will update as soon as we have more information on that.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

On 6 December last year, we lost Mr Seán Fitzsimons, one of the most powerful disability advocates. I am sure that the Minister would recognise his loss to that piece of work and that Seán Fitzsimons would have loved to hear the news today about the potential for significant change for our disabled communities. We extend our thoughts to the family, who were mourning his loss this time last year.

Minister, this is good news — at least, it certainly has the potential to be good news — but your statement refers to "potential reform" of the DDA, which is 30 years old. As chair of the all-party group (APG) on disability, I have not heard a single person say that the DDA is not fit for purpose. Will the Minister outline why changes have not happened in the past 30 years and give a more significant and complete timeline for the full implementation of the UNCRPD and changes to the legislation?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

First, I thank the Member for his kind words about Seán. I was at an event that paid tribute to him last week at City Hall. I have no doubt that he made a significant contribution to the document through his work in the groups. I pay tribute to him and to the work that he carried out. It was great to meet his family and his son, Ollie, last week. I am very grateful to him for that work.

The Member may have been a little bit wrong when he said that he had not met anyone who thinks that the Act is not fit for purpose, rather than fit for purpose. I do not think that it is fit for purpose. That is why we need to do more work on it, and that will be done. There is a commitment, as I said in the statement, to review that. I hope that there is not any misunderstanding. We will take that forward.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Minister, you mentioned that there would be a number of groups and organisations in the forum to hold you to account. Can I have some more detail on that?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

As I said, the forum will be composed entirely of deaf and disabled people. We want as broad a representation on it as possible. There are many people involved in the disability sector. I want it to be broad, because I want to hear the views, the expertise and the lived experience of those involved. We do not have the details yet on the exact process for that. It will also depend on the feedback from the consultation. However, the forum will have a key role not only in monitoring and holding us to account but in bringing forward new ideas as time progresses, because it is a 10-year strategy.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

I thank the Minister for bringing forward the disability strategy today and for the announcement on the disability forum. Minister, you mentioned the fully representative nature of the forum and referred to the young disabled people who will be on it. However, given that we have an ageing population, Minister, can you confirm that older people will also be on the panel, as well as representatives from rural areas, such as those in my constituency, where deaf and disabled people face increased barriers and isolation? Transportation is a particular issue in accessing services.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Absolutely. I have said that I want representation to be as broad as possible so that we hear those views. As I said, there are differing circumstances in rural and urban areas. Those need to be taken into account. We want it to be as comprehensive as possible in taking in all those views. I certainly hope that we have some representation from South Down as well.

Michelle Guy (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Minister, I welcome the statement. I am pleased to see that you are reserving places for disabled young people on the disability forum. What collaboration has your Department had with the Department of Education to ensure that the strategy will help disabled young people to fulfil their educational potential?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

There has been extensive engagement not just with the Department of Education but all Departments because it impacts on so many areas of life. Of course, that engagement has happened through the groups that have been set up. We have been clear that we want to make sure that we help people fulfil their full potential, and that includes children's educational experiences.

I encourage people to look at the document and to respond to it and to the commitments that we have made to see what needs changed and what can be improved. It will be a genuine consultation process. If the Member would like to see any further issues included in it, we would be happy to hear from her.

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

Nollaig shona daoibh.

[Translation: A merry Christmas to you.]

I hope that every family, especially children, get to experience the magic and the joy of Christmas.

I thank the Minister for his statement, and I hope that it delivers on its promise to deaf and disabled people. Does the Minister anticipate any necessity for training public servants in the delivery of the disability strategy in order to achieve the eight outcomes, as outlined?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

A very happy Christmas to Mr McNulty as well.

Some Members

Hear, hear.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I hope that Santa comes. I hope that the Member has been a good boy this year. That is maybe to be determined. Maybe he can ask Santa for a new phone

[Laughter]

if he is not able to find his.

The Member asks a relevant question. It is important that we have a step change and that staff, be they in the public or private sector, understand the needs and concerns of deaf and disabled people. Those are changes that we look forward to bringing through, but, of course, there will be a requirement, whether for the Civil Service or elsewhere in the public sector, to understand the changes that will be implemented and the things that they can do to make it easier for deaf and disabled people. You will see some of those come through in the action plan, specifically, but, if the Member thinks that there is anything missing, I encourage him to respond to the public consultation.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I welcome the Minister's statement and the confirmation that the forum will work closely with the various Departments. That is key to delivering for the deaf and disabled community. Mid and East Antrim Borough Council recently established a lived experience group made up of councillors and members of the public with disabilities. It meets for the first time tomorrow, and I wish it all the best as it moves forward. Is it envisaged that the forum will work closely with local councils and groups such as the one I have outlined as well as the various Departments in Stormont?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I am pleased to hear that that group has been set up in Mid and East Antrim Borough Council, and I wish it well as it carries out its work. Of course I would like to see the regional disability forum engage with other stakeholders as it carries out its work and monitors the implementation and development of the strategy. It would be useful for them to take into consideration the views of others, particularly when it comes to ensuring that the needs of all deaf and disabled people are met, because there are significant differences in some of the challenges that are faced, especially between urban and rural areas. That is where the expertise of the group that he mentioned in Mid and Antrim Borough Council can be useful. I welcome its establishment, and I hope that other councils can look at that example. One of the reasons why it is so important is that we need to raise awareness and visibility, and we need to be better aware of the small things that we can do every day to improve the opportunities, experiences and life chances of those who are affected. I welcome the establishment of that group and his support for the strategy.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

The Minister talked about access to the labour market. Can he expand on that and what will it look like? How will he ensure that people whose personal independence payment (PIP) has been cut and who have lost their mobility car, will be able to get into work?

Quickly — with your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, given the time of year — as the Minister has been speaking, I have been tagged online by Dermot Devlin. He, alongside three members of the disability strategy co-design group, has published a brief outlining concerns about the strategy. I have not read it yet, but will the Minister commit to engaging with Dermot and members of the group to hear their concerns?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

We have the disability at work strategy in place, because opportunities should be open to everyone. Work is an opportunity — it is a good thing — and people should not be prohibited from working because of their disability. That is why we have put that strategy in place and why we think that employers should make reasonable adjustments if that would help people enter the workplace. That is why we are putting through JobStart to help people, many of whom have disabilities, get into work. I want to be clear: I am not taking the approach that the Labour Government have taken and pulling the rug from under people. I want to help people get into work and improve their life chances.

The Member will be aware that I have not seen the documentation that he talks about, but of course we will engage. This is a consultation process: we are going to hear from people. Having put other strategies in place, I understand that, when you go out for consultation, there will always be those who will say, "Why isn't x in?", or, "Why do we not have y or z in the document?". This is the opportunity, through the strategy, for people to give us their feedback and views.

I met many of the stakeholders last week. It is fair to say that there is broad welcome for the strategy; that people are pleased that it is in place, that they have been listened to and that we are now going to be able to start collecting data; that the disability forum is in place; and that there will be a review of the legislation. Many of the other 58 commitments in the strategy are to be welcomed. If there are more, of course we will listen, engage and take on board what we can, because we want something that genuinely meets the needs of disabled people. That is why the process is in place. We will be happy to listen to all.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Many people who live in social housing require accommodation that suits their needs, and that demand is likely to grow. The Minister, however, has indicated that he intends to change the design standards of social housing to reduce the minimum requirement for disability-inclusive accommodation. Does the Minister agree that the policy proposal flies in the face of the spirit of the disability strategy?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

No, it does not, because I want to ensure that we have more houses in Northern Ireland that are suitable for those who require them. We do not need to ensure that all houses are built to the same standard. Doing that would increase the cost, and, over the lifetime of the house, there might not be anybody living in it who requires those expensive changes. I want to make sure that we have sufficient houses that are properly constructed and adaptable for those who need that. I would rather make sure that we have more houses overall that meet the needs of disabled and non-disabled people than have fewer houses that are built to a certain spec that is not necessarily needed for everybody. It is a common-sense thing to do. We can keep doing things the way that we have always done them and wonder why we do not get different results. I am prepared to do something differently to meet the challenges that we face.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Before we move on, I remind Members that, if they wish to ask a question following a ministerial statement, they need to have been in the Chamber to hear the statement. Apart from that, I confirm that the goodwill expressed during that set of questions, from the Minister and Mr McNulty, also comes from the Chair, and it will hopefully prevail in the following debates. That concludes questions on the statement.

Private Members' Business

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

I beg to move

That this Assembly notes with grave concern the findings of module 2 of the UK COVID-19 inquiry report, including that the current institutional structures weakened the ability of the Executive to respond during a global emergency and that decision-making was marred by political disputes; regrets that, at certain critical points during the pandemic, Ministers from the two largest parties failed to put the common interest of all the people of Northern Ireland above their party political interests; condemns the inappropriate use of cross-community votes within the Executive and the breaking of rules by Ministers; resolves that that dysfunction in decision-making must never be repeated; believes that no single party should ever again have the ability to hold decision-making in the Executive, or the Executive themselves, to ransom; and calls on the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to convene a process of institutional reform, in consultation with the Irish Government and local parties, without further delay.

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. An amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, so the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Please open the debate on the motion.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

The findings of module 2 of the UK COVID-19 inquiry speak directly to the functioning of the Executive during one of the most serious crises of our lifetime. Before I turn to the substance of my remarks, I confirm that we will support the SDLP's amendment. My party made it clear in its response to the draft Programme for Government that institutional reform ought to be part of the Executive's work, but that becomes impossible when the two largest parties block progress. That, in itself, illustrates why reform is needed.

What the inquiry has laid out is stark; it describes a system that responded too slowly and which suffered from what Baroness Hallett called a fractured and dysfunctional approach to collective decision-making. In Northern Ireland, the dysfunction was magnified. What emerged here was a disjointed and, at times, politically motivated approach to a global emergency that touched every household. The uncomfortable truth is that some Ministers did not consistently put the people of Northern Ireland first. When unity, clarity and discipline were needed, political point-scoring too often filled the space instead. The inquiry has confirmed that. Those are not Alliance's criticisms; they are the findings of an independent, statutory process, the chair of which concluded that Northern Ireland's institutions and structures significantly weakened the Executive's ability to respond effectively in the pandemic.

Rightly, the motion notes those findings with grave concern and expresses regret that there were failures of leadership displayed by Ministers from the two largest parties at key moments. Those failures are now matters of public record. There were delayed interventions, public disputes and decisions blocked when time was critical. Sadly, recent behaviour in the Chamber suggests that the culture has not materially changed. Bickering, point-scoring and the pursuit of sound bites still displace the serious collective work that the public expect from us. After the report was published, members of the public told the media that they have been conditioned not to expect much from political leaders here. That is a devastating indictment and one that we should all take seriously.

Health must never be a partisan battleground. In a public health emergency, the Executive table should be a place of unity, yet the inquiry found that cohesion was missing at several key points. Baroness Hallett stated plainly that the Executive were not the central forum for crisis leadership that they needed to be. A major factor in that failing was the misuse of cross-community mechanisms. Alliance has long warned that those safeguards were designed to protect inclusion, not to be used as political weapons. During the pandemic, they were used in ways that eroded public confidence and trust at a time when trust was already fragile.

That reflects a deeper structural flaw. The current cross-community voting arrangements create a democratic deficit. Alliance MLAs are elected by voters from all backgrounds, yet our votes do not count in cross-community Divisions. During the pandemic, that meant that thousands of people whom we represent were effectively excluded from some of the most consequential decisions ever taken here.

The most striking example —.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

I would like to make a bit of progress.

The most striking example came in November 2020, when a cross-community mechanism was used to block a proposed circuit breaker, despite majority support for stronger restrictions. As Baroness Hallett noted, that left the Executive unable to take timely and consistent decisions. The result was weaker and delayed intervention during a major wave of infection. It is difficult to see the fairness or the democracy in that outcome.

Dysfunction in a crisis is not just poor governance; it is dangerous governance. That is why the motion states:

"no single party should ever again have the ability to hold decision-making ... or the Executive themselves, to ransom".

No mandate gives a party the right to paralyse government when lives are at stake. Let me be clear: this is not an attack on power-sharing. Power-sharing is essential here in Northern Ireland. What we oppose is power-dividing. The institutions must be robust enough to function in a crisis. They must be fair, credible and genuinely collective when tested.

We must never forget the human reality behind what happened. Thousands of people in Northern Ireland died; families grieved without funerals; older people endured isolation; disabled people felt invisible; workers faced impossible choices; and children lost months of learning, stability and their normal lives. Those are human stories, not statistics, and many families now ask, with reason, whether clearer, faster and more decisive leadership could have reduced their suffering. We cannot undo what happened, but we can choose what we learn.

One of the most serious findings for Northern Ireland was the fragmentation of decision-making. The Department of Health carried an impossible burden while the Executive failed to operate as a coherent system. Authority was unclear, advice was disputed and responsibility was not shared. Baroness Hallett described that as a structural weakness that left Northern Ireland exposed. Key sectors, especially care homes, carers and disability organisations issued repeated warnings about disproportionate impacts. Their voices were not systematically built into decision-making, and that must change.

Our institutions were designed to end conflict, protect identity and guarantee representation. Those purposes remain vital, but a system built primarily to manage division is not automatically a system that is capable of managing a fast-moving public health emergency. The inquiry makes that point plainly. Reform does not mean dismantling power-sharing. It means strengthening it and building resilience into the structures that we already have so that they hold firm under pressure. We need open, honest communication with the public. Trust takes years to earn and moments to lose, and we cannot claim to have learned lessons unless transparency becomes the norm rather than the exception.

We must recognise that future crises will not stop at our borders. Whether the next shock is in public health, the economy or climate, cooperation with the UK Government and the Irish Government must be grounded in stable, agreed structures, not improvised arrangements made in panic. Those are the foundations of competent government, and they reflect Alliance's values: pluralism over polarisation; service over division; and the belief that good government is not optional but our duty. That is why the motion calls on the Secretary of State to convene a process of institutional reform in consultation with the Irish Government and local parties and stakeholders. Some of what is needed requires action beyond this Assembly.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for giving way. Can the Member outline why she believes that the Irish Government should be involved in institutional reform in Northern Ireland? Would that not be a breach of the current arrangements via the Belfast Agreement?

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

We know that the Belfast Agreement was an international agreement, so we think that institutional reform will require all partners to step forward. I do not see any reason why we would exclude the partners who were instrumental in bringing about the institutions in the first place. I will move on.

There will always be those who say that this is not the right time, but, if we cannot reform our institutions after a crisis that took so many lives, when will be the right time? Another crisis will come. It will not look exactly like COVID, but it will come. The test for us all is whether we act when we have the chance. We owe it to the families who grieved; the health and social care workers who carried unbearable burdens; the children and young people whose lives were disrupted; and the future generations who deserve institutions that are capable of protecting them. I urge Members to support our motion, and I commend it to the House.

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

I beg to move the following amendment:

After "to ransom;" insert: "laments the failure by Executive parties to adopt institutional reform as a priority within the Programme for Government; accepts that that missed opportunity has contributed to continued political instability and a loss of public confidence;"

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

You will have 10 minutes to propose the amendment and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who speak will have five minutes. Mr O'Toole, please open the debate on the amendment.

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

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. It is one of the final motions before we break up for Christmas, and, in many ways, it is fitting because, since we came back in February last year after our two-year forced absence — forced by one party, as it had been forced by a different party previously — in one sense, as an official Opposition, we represent one of the bits of institutional reform that has happened. I hope that — perhaps I am not the one to judge — we have been relatively successful, or the idea of opposition has been successful. As leader of the Opposition, the first thing that I did was challenge the newly appointed First Minister and deputy First Minister not to resign their offices. The only way to directly collapse these institutions is for one of the two major designated parties to resign that office and then refuse to appoint a replacement. Neither of those individuals, nor their parties, has ever given me that commitment. That speaks to a fundamental problem with the way our system works. It is why the motion is necessary, and it speaks to dysfunction. However, that is not the only thing that is dysfunctional about the way that our politics works.

Our amendment is an important one. It is about accountability. Yes, it is about holding Executive parties to account. We make no apology for that, because, as I said, one of the most important bits of institutional and political reform that has happened here is the creation of an official Opposition. Like everybody else, we deserve to be held to account through robust debate in the Chamber, and robust debate in the Chamber is necessary so long as it is focused on policy and outcomes for the public, not personalities.

I will come on to the Executive parties — all of them — and their failure to make progress on a Programme for Government, because that is important, but, first, I will reflect on the core thrust of the motion: the findings of module 2 of the COVID inquiry. They are shocking. Let us remember not only the awfulness of the years of COVID-19 and the difficult position in which every individual and family across the world was put but the immense pressure that healthcare workers, educationalists, teachers, families and, indeed, policymakers were under. For those of us who had to legislate and make decisions for people, it was extraordinarily difficult. All those things were made worse by the two major parties in our Executive. The inquiry is scathing about that and about how our system of government let down the public, who lost loved ones.

The inquiry made it clear that the situation was worse for families and the public in Northern Ireland because of decisions that were made by the two big parties. Sinn Féin facilitated and attended a funeral in the middle of Belfast in clear violation either of the restrictions themselves or of the spirit of them, which undermined people's confidence in leadership at a time when others' loved ones either died alone or were buried effectively in private. That was immensely hurtful, and it took years for an apology.

The DUP used cross-community vetoes to block public health measures. That was an extraordinarily inappropriate thing to do.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

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

I will give way in a few minutes, not just yet.

That is not what those vetoes are for. As we know from yesterday, the DUP is trying to use those vetoes again. At least, in the case of yesterday, the use of the veto is totally futile, because it is being used in relation to a non-binding motion, but it comes back to how, unfortunately, the DUP occasionally sees politics.

The COVID-19 inquiry exposed why we need to change how we do politics here. As a party that was an architect of the Good Friday Agreement, we remain profoundly morally, politically and intellectually committed to the idea of sharing power, but, as Paula Bradshaw said, it has to be about sharing. In order to share power, you have to have a vision of the common good that respects different identities and aspirations for the future. Our politics has become about negative vetoes, stalemate, divvying up power and sharing it out when it suits one another. We have already seen that this week, with the failure to agree a multi-year Budget in time for the end of the year and the beginning of the financial year. There are multiple examples of that every day.

The case is proven for the need to reform how this place works. The word "reform" is often bandied about without precision about what it means, and it can mean a multiplicity of things. It is understood most definitively as meaning "institutional reform", but what we have to mean by that is making it harder to collapse the institutions, so that they are more sustainable. It should not just be about their being here and our showing up and debating motions that have no legal effect but about our Government's being more effective at dealing with the issues that face people in their lives. It is about recognising that there are different aspirations and traditions in this society, having a clear list of priorities, ideally in a Programme for Government that is matched to a Budget, and saying to the public, "This is what we are delivering for you". That is what reform should be about, and that is what we are about. That is why we have championed reform, and I acknowledge that others in the Chamber want to do that too.

That brings me on to the thrust of our amendment, which is about accounting for all the parties in the Chamber. Literally every party in the Chamber has said at one point that it wants to fundamentally reform how the institutions work. It is a much more recent move for Sinn Féin, but it now says — rhetorically at least — that it wants the Assembly and Executive Review Committee to investigate that. I welcome that. To be honest, I do not think that that would have happened without political pressure from other quarters, including from us as the official Opposition. I do not think that that is an unreasonable position for Sinn Féin to take; it is a welcome development, and I hope that it keeps that up and is serious about delivering on it.

I will come on to the Alliance Party, but we know that the Ulster Unionist Party has acknowledged that there needs to be reform. The DUP, however, now seems to be implacably opposed. It keeps talking about how any change to the way in which Stormont works would be a profound offence. I will very briefly read out some words:

"We believe that in the long-term, the best means of governing Northern Ireland would involve a voluntary coalition Executive and weighted majority voting of around 65% in the Assembly, resulting in an end to Community Designation. This ... could provide for both an Executive and an official Opposition"

— we are flattered to be included —

"which would be consistent with normal democratic institutions",

blah-blah-blah.

Those words are not from the Alliance Party or the Ulster Unionist Party's manifesto; they are, in fact, from the DUP's manifesto in 2011. When a Programme for Government was agreed, we did not see any of that. When it comes to accountability, we are —.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

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

I am not going to give way; I have been asked to give way multiple times. I am happy to do so in a second, if I have time, but I need to make some progress. I think that I am one of the most generous Members when it comes to taking interventions in the Chamber.

I want to say this, however: we know that all parties in the Chamber, including the Alliance Party, have a long-standing commitment to reform. I do not say this to be gratuitous — it is pre-Christmas, and I say it in a spirit of goodwill — but it is important to say that the Alliance Party won an extraordinary mandate in 2022. I know that it was extraordinary, because we lost a third of our seats thanks to the Alliance Party. The Alliance Party is right when it says that that was an historic mandate. Unfortunately, however, the people who voted for the Alliance Party on that day have not seen a clear, meaningful return on that investment. That is not just the fault of the DUP and Sinn Féin — they cannot simply be blamed for that.

This is a really important point: when discussions were had about restoring the Executive last year, a lot of people would have felt that it would be entirely reasonable for the Alliance Party, with a more than doubled representation in the Executive, to say to the other parties, "As a condition of our participation in this Executive, we insist upon a commitment to make progress on institutional reform". That would not have been, as it is sometimes described, ransom politics. It could not have been ransom politics. The Alliance Party does not designate as First Minister or deputy First Minister, so it could not have blocked Sinn Féin or the DUP from forming an Executive. It would simply have been keeping true to the mandate that it received in 2022, but I am afraid that it did not do that.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

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

I do not have time, but I am happy to engage. If I have time at the end, I will give way.

That party did not hold faith with its mandate. I am not saying that that would have been easy, nor am I saying that it would have led to institutional reform, because the two big parties may well have blocked it. However, it is true to say that it would have been an entirely reasonable and, in fact, obvious thing to do, because the upshot of some of the Alliance Party's proposals for reform is that it wants a more voluntary or more flexible form of coalition. Saying that your participation is conditional not on getting everything that you want but on at least making progress on one thing, even if it involves saying, "We will enter an Executive for a period of time, subject to its being included in a Programme for Government", would have been the entirely responsible thing to do. It is hugely regrettable to me that that did not happen, because I want to see reform. It is also true to say that many people who voted for a party that does not traditionally designate as unionist or nationalist and who wanted to see reform have not seen progress on that. I do not say that to be rude or unkind — it is pre-Christmas — and I want to work with the Alliance Party to deliver reform, but it did not use the mandate that it received in 2022 to deliver on that.

Where do we go from here? We must use all the means that are available to us. Let us go back to being honest. All of us in the Chamber must acknowledge that trust in politics is at an all-time low. We simply cannot go on like this. The Assembly and Executive Review Committee is doing some important work, but it is a relatively obscure Stormont Committee. Let us agree today in the Chamber with the Alliance Party motion that we need to make progress on this. Let us do it; let us not simply write to Santa Claus, Hilary Benn, asking him to do it for us. Let us start the work here, and let us take responsibility. People do not trust us; they have contempt for those of us who are in the Chamber. Let us reform this place —

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Time is up.

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

— and let us take responsibility for our actions.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

We are 27 years on from the Good Friday Agreement, and we must acknowledge how far we have come and how much things have changed. The context in which we now operate is fundamentally different from that of 1998. With that in mind, we must look seriously and maturely at reform. Sinn Féin is up for that discussion. We are open to exploring how our institutions can be strengthened and how accountability can be improved. However, we are equally clear that any reform must defend, not dilute, the principles of and protections in the Good Friday Agreement.

The proper forum in which to examine those issues in detail, hear expert evidence and bring forward meaningful proposals is the Assembly and Executive Review Committee. That work is ongoing, and a process of evidence gathering and consultation is under way. As part of our current work programme, we on that Committee are engaging with academics, constitutional experts and others on questions such as the role and election of the Speaker, cross-community voting and designations, the process for Executive formation and all the other important issues.

Those are complex issues that require thoughtful consideration. The Assembly and Executive Review Committee is the place to have that conversation, test ideas, build consensus and ensure that any changes strengthen, rather than undermine, these institutions. As I have said previously in the Chamber, I was pleased to support a proposal from my Committee colleague Alliance MLA Michelle Guy to explore enhanced civic engagement on the issue of institutional reform. Civic participation was key to building the Good Friday Agreement, and it should remain central to how we continue to shape these political institutions. If we were to hand responsibility for the process to a Secretary of State who has consistently shown himself to be out of touch with people here, it would be the wrong approach. It would also cut across the constructive work already taking place at Committee level. People elected representatives to this Assembly to take forward proposals, debate them, test ideas and work towards agreement.

Our message is clear. Sinn Féin is up for the discussion. We are engaging with the detail, and we will continue to do so through the proper forum, the Assembly and Executive Review Committee. Others, particularly the DUP, need to explain where they stand because setting your face against reform is not a plan for the future, and it is not good enough for all the people whom we come here to represent.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I suppose that I have mixed emotions about the debate. Primarily, my thoughts are with those who lost loved ones during COVID, those who continue to suffer the aftermath of long-term health effects, the children who missed out on schooling and, indeed, those who were bereaved. Those of us who were in the Chamber at the time can recount a very difficult time as an elected representative. I remember the elderly constituent who was impaled on the cemetery fence as he went to lay flowers at his wife's grave when the cemeteries were closed due to COVID restrictions. I remember the constituent who presented late at A&E and his throat cancer was so developed that it was missed. He died. I remember the businesses destroyed. I remember going to the window of a care home to visit a dear friend and watch him die from the window. I remember those things. I was present as an elected representative. I took views in the Assembly that were different from those of other Members, but they were all taken from a position of huge empathy and a huge degree of respect for those who had no voice.

That is why I look at the motion, and I look at Governments around the world that struggled with COVID. There was not one Government that did not struggle with the COVID pandemic. If we look at deaths per million around the world, we see that the UK does not even enter the top 10. That is not to say that the UK Government got everything right; they got many things wrong, as did the devolved Administrations. However, it is a fallacy to say that it is because of the institutions and the way in which they operate here that we so failed the people of Northern Ireland.

I am disappointed in the Alliance Party today because it is not only low but crass to try to insinuate and link that to your desire for institutional reform, which you know rightly goes to the very heart of safeguards in the agreements, the Belfast Agreement and the St Andrews Agreement, that are crucial to this place functioning. We know that this is a divided society, and we know that it needs to have cross-community support on key issues.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I will in a minute, because the Member gave way to me.

When I look at that, I say that that is crass and is gaslighting the victims who suffered as a result of some the decisions taken by Members in the House. I will make this point, and then I will give way: it is very obvious to me that it is the Alliance Party that is so keen to talk up collapse, and it is quite obvious that there is a campaign. You are in a political vice. You are being squeezed from the left by the SDLP, which is putting you under pressure. There is a huge chasm between you and unionism because of the positions that you have adopted. Ms Bradshaw failed to mention in her opening speech that one of the most brass-necked, outlandish and despicable acts during the COVID pandemic in Northern Ireland was the mass attendance at the Bobby Storey funeral.

To the SDLP's credit, Matthew O'Toole mentioned it. Ms Bradshaw could not even mention it. It shows how far to the left, and indeed into Sinn Féin's lap, Alliance has fallen.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Will the Member give take an intervention?

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

On that point, I give way to a Member of the Alliance Party who can suggest an action of reform that would have delivered better results during the COVID pandemic.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

I thank the Member for giving way. This is about institutional reform, so —

A Member

No, it is not.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

No, it is. It is about institutional reform. The report laid bare the need for it. My question to you is: have you read Baroness Hallett's response? These —.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Let me answer.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

OK.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I only have a moment. Have I read the report? Yes.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

You have an extra minute.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

The Member is quite crass to talk about whether I have read the report. I sat on the Health Committee with her during the COVID pandemic. She did not even realise at the time that the Coronavirus Act 2020 enabled the Minister of Health to have vast, overreaching powers beyond the Assembly. She is trying to rewrite the past.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Two Members cannot be on their feet at the same time. I will take your point of order, Ms Bradshaw.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

I want the record to reflect that I spoke in every single debate on the COVID regulations, and I always stressed that we in the Alliance Party were deeply troubled by the fact that the Health Minister had such far-reaching powers. During —.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I am going to move on. Mr Buckley's time —.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

The Member did not even realise —.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

What are you talking about? Of course I realised. Of course I realised.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Members will resume their seats. Points of order will not be used as points of information during the debate. Mr Buckley will continue.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

It is quite easy to understand why the Member is angry —

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

You are telling lies.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

— because she failed fundamentally to scrutinise —.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Order.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

She failed to fundamentally scrutinise legislation that had a huge impact. The Alliance Members were lockdown fanatics. That caused huge harm in our schools. There are still record levels of truancy in our schools. The legislation caused record levels of anxiety in our communities, which craved leadership, and Alliance showed none. Alliance wants to come to the House today to try to rewrite its record during the COVID pandemic. Talk about accountability? It was the Alliance Party's leader, Naomi Long, who wiped her WhatsApp messages. Where was the accountability there? Perhaps take a mirror and look at your own face before throwing around accusations —.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Mr Buckley, resume your seat. I am going to call order again. I refer all Members to the terms of the motion, but particularly you, Mr Buckley. You have strayed some way from that and you are straying into the business of reviewing the entire COVID process. Return to the motion.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I will, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I think there is a brave degree of rewriting and hypocrisy from some of the parties that are debating the motion.

Parties fundamentally disagreed on aspects of COVID. Do you know what? Rightly so, because they were huge decisions. However, understand this — I want to be clear — you will not use the COVID inquiry or the death of loved ones from all across Northern Ireland to take away safeguards that are crucial to the functioning of this place.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Time is up.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I say this to the Secretary of State: no unionist will support it.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Time is up. Thank you.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I have a speech written, but I might digress from it because the debate has moved into a slightly different sphere. In the first instance, my party would have loved to support the first part of the motion, because it talks about the reform of the institutions for the common good. However, I listened to Mr Sheehan's speech, and he did not reference the first part of the motion at all. Sinn Féin has spotted the two parts of the motion: one to ignore and one to lean into. Now, we have looked at it from a balanced perspective. Members in the Chamber have different views on what happened during COVID and what has happened since. Sadly, the motion has lost every bit of good that it could have had.

I was one of the MLAs who was here during New Decade, New Approach, when we worked for weeks through talks, about 200 or 300 yards away from the Chamber, to try to restore these institutions. Part of those talks was about reform. That is hard to deliver and, if you do not deliver reform in the House with the authority of all the voices in the Chamber, you doom yourself to failure. I ask the Members who tabled the motion to reflect on the fact that it is a missed opportunity.

I want to turn to Baroness Hallett's module 2 findings for a moment or two. The findings are damning — absolutely damning. Evidence showed the clear failure of leadership in this place. Sinn Féin, evidently, failed spectacularly when it did not obey the laws that we had passed here collectively. That was not mentioned today. The ongoing process that we had at the very top between the DUP and Sinn Féin and the failure to put people before party became evident when we could not make decisions. I want to deal with that very quickly because I am sure that, some day, we will have a better debate about what happened during COVID. I am genuinely pleased that we had a Health Minister in Robin Swann, who did not delete his phone or WhatsApp messages and has been able to contribute fully to the COVID inquiry. I do not claim that I got everything right in the whole COVID debate. However, what I will say is that I have a background in dynamic risk assessment. When you dynamically risk assess something such as the COVID pandemic, you do not have all the facts, so what you do is listen to those who do have the facts — the scientists and medical experts — and put your faith in the people who are giving you the best advice based on what has been proven. We are certainly not experts. We could have acted more speedily. Would we have got everything right? We absolutely would not have done because it was an imperfect storm. Nothing was going to protect —.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. With regard to the advice that was given to Robin Swann, the Health Minister, who had all the power — whether he chose to use it or not was up to him — the CMO in England silenced the ethical and moral group that was there to advise him on ethical standards. That would have migrated over the sea in the advice that Robin Swann received. Does the Member agree that it was dangerous to have power in one man and one party throughout that emergency?

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Member has an extra minute.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I do not actually see how one man had that power. We passed legislation. There were 90 Members in the House and an Executive. Had that Executive been functioning properly, and has there been trust among Members, we would not have been in the mess that we are discussing today. Therefore, I do not accept what the Member has said.

I agree with Mr Buckley's assertion. The second part of the motion actually asks us to disregard strand one of the Good Friday Agreement.

Some Members

Yes.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

That should have been separated out. If that is what the Alliance Party wants to do, that should be a separate motion in and of itself. I genuinely lament the fact that we could not simply have debated a motion on how we collectively bring leadership, collaboration and cohesion to the Executive, because the people of Northern Ireland darned well deserve that. It is not just about COVID. The first part of the motion speaks to the fact that we have not had a Government here for 12 years out of 25. That is an indictment of why we cannot govern at times.

If and when there is a serious motion to debate the reform and betterment of the Good Friday Agreement for the future prosperity and well-being of the people of Northern Ireland, my party will not be found wanting. However, we will not set aside aspects of the Good Friday Agreement for anybody's political whims.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank Alliance and the SDLP for tabling the motion and amendment. While I do not like some of the language in them, I completely support the spirit of both.

I declare an interest as I was a Minister from June 2020 to December 2020 and was responsible for making some of the COVID regulations. I went in front of the COVID inquiry. I have read each of the module reports. I have read the recent report. It is not good reading for anyone. I apologised privately to families and at the COVID inquiry for my attendance at Bobby Storey's funeral. That is the measure of political leadership.

Matthew, my party has not come late to the table on reform. We have taken part in a series of citizens' assemblies right across the island. We have listened to people. I do not agree with a lot of what they said, but we can certainly appreciate what they said. That is why we are serious about reform. I do not want to do down AERC, because it is a space in which we go through the process of working with academics, listening to consultations and doing the citizens' assemblies before bringing our findings back to our parties. I want to put to bed any suggestion that we are not serious about reform. If people want to approach that from a different political perspective, that is up to them.

This debate is really interesting for me, and a lot of observers who watch this place. Paul Frew is very vocal about the impacts of COVID, which is his prerogative, and Jonathan Buckley has talked about what Jonathan talks about. I, and, I think, the people watching and listening, would have much preferred to hear what you are doing about reform. Instead, you attacked parties because they are different from you.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I will give way in a wee minute, Jonathan.

That demonstrates a lack of political confidence and political leadership.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for giving way. I appreciate that she apologised for her attendance at Bobby Storey's funeral; it is just a pity that other members of her party did not.

I am serious about the reform that we should all be serious about, which is the reform of public services. Does the Member agree that key institutional reforms, such as the removal of cross-community safeguards, will be achieved only if there is agreement across the House, rather than the agreement of one political party?

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Member has an extra minute.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Alliance, the SDLP and ourselves are trying to get to that point in AERC. The Member may not appreciate this, but we are trying to get to a point at which we all agree on institutional reform. With respect, Jonathan, coming from a party that has blocked equality and progress —.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Nonsense.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The proof has been in the pudding. We are looking at the bill of rights and lots of other issues that would promote rights, equality, inclusion and respect, which are the fundamental cornerstones of the Good Friday Agreement and anything that comes with it.

Both Governments need to be involved at some stage. If we get to the stage of having to decide on proposals in AERC — hopefully we will — and yourselves and the UUP —. Robbie is not here, but I was on the Executive when Robin Swann voted against his own proposal because he was a DUP fanboy at the time. I am just putting that on the record. At some stage or other, we are going to have to look at reform. What is happening here at the minute is not working.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I will surely, Eóin. Very briefly.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for giving way. I appreciate what she said about the spirit of reform, but I am still not clear on whether her intention is to support the motion.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Begrudgingly. I do not like the language, but I will support it. We will also support the amendment. I say "begrudgingly" because we did not write it, but, accepting the spirit of it, we absolutely will support it. You cannot talk about reform, equality, inclusion and the very essence of this place and then block the very motions and amendments that are trying to look at things differently.

What some Members are going to say has become almost predictable. Members need to be genuinely serious about reform. If they are happy to hold on to vetoes and blocking mechanisms, at least we will all know where we stand. The progressive parties need to get on with the business, and, hopefully, some people will come to their senses along the way.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Today, so many people who have suffered loss and bereavement have been in the Building. I do not know whether Members got to see and hear the event in the Long Gallery this morning involving people who suffered loss and bereavement due to the pandemic and the lockdown philosophy that meant that they could not bury their loved ones, attend a funeral or attend a wake.

Alliance would dare to exploit that and, indeed, Alliance's own failings to try to further its political goals and objectives.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

No, I will not give way.

Reform will not fix incompetence, reform will not fix lazy governance, and reform will not fix stupid. Everything that was constitutional and institutional about this place was held in abeyance at the time of COVID. Reform would not have stopped those parties and the Assembly giving away all its power to one person, no matter who that person was, to dream up regulations and restrictions and have them written up over breakfast, implemented at lunchtime and enforced by supper time. It shifted the whole dynamic of the Executive. The Executive changed, in one move, how they would make decisions that impacted on our people so badly and disastrously. Reform could not have stopped the Coronavirus Act 2020, which made this a zombie Assembly that rubber-stamped horrific laws weeks after they had been enforced and then, of course, superseded. Those laws had been made redundant numerous times over before the Assembly even voted on them.

A Member

Will the Member give way?

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

No, I will not.

Whilst the regulations were fleeting, the damage remains to this day: people filled with anxiety, not able to leave their home; people not able to attend school; people who were coerced to take vaccines that damaged them — of course, the Member called for house-to-house and door-to-door vaccine teams to coerce people into taking a vaccine that caused them adverse reactions. That is what we are left with, but it is what Alliance will not get to grips with.

When I was asking questions about and raising objections to those restrictions, two SDLP Members came to me in the corridor and said, "You know, Paul, we agree with everything that you say in there". I asked, "Well, why do you not get up off your hind legs and actually say that?", and they said, "No, our party would go through us". That party, the SDLP, then called for the sacking of nurses, who had worked for a whole year on the front line; the SDLP called for their sacking. Those people, the SDLP, even called for the unvaccinated and those who chose not to have the discriminatory certificate to be banished.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Mr Frew, I asked earlier for people not to reassess the entire COVID period and processes, and I will certainly not indulge party critiques. Will you return to the motion?

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Yes, I will, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am referring to module 2 of the UK COVID-19 inquiry, which talked about all those matters. An Alliance Member asked me one day, "Why do you keep asking those questions?". Well, that is our job. It was their incompetence. We know that the Alliance Party played a massive role in the coercion around vaccine certification. We need to grapple with this issue, but to use it as an excuse to reform these institutions, which were held in abeyance? The Executive did not function properly. The Assembly could not do its scrutiny work. It should take months to pass regulations and legislation in this place.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for giving way. The Member makes an interesting point. Does he agree that it was not the structures of the Executive that prevented adequate scrutiny and adequate legislation but the Coronavirus Act 2020, which those Members supported?

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Member has an extra minute.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Yes. I thank the Member for that vital intervention. It is that Act, which still sits on the statute book, that has done the damage. We have families who are filled with regret, guilt and torment because they could not give their loved ones a proper send-off according to their religion. They could not do that. In Ireland, North and South, a wake is really important, and those people were denied it. In fact, they could not even stand in the open air in a field — a burial ground. That was disastrous, and we still live with the consequences. Assembly Members in the Chamber were denied the ability to scrutinise and denied their say, because we passed laws weeks after they had been enforced, when they had been duplicated, removed and superseded three or four times over. That is no way to run an Executive; that is no way to run an Assembly. In a crisis, we need more scrutiny powers and more of a say, not less, but that is what all those parties supported at the time: shame on you all.

Michelle Guy (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

The purpose of the motion is not to re-litigate the failures of leadership and decision-making during COVID that have been vividly expressed by Baroness Hallett in the latest findings of the COVID-19 inquiry. At its heart, the purpose of the motion is to understand how the two largest parties in the Executive are prepared to react to them.

When I heard the finding that decision-making was "chaotic", "deeply divided" and "marred by political disputes", I know how I reacted — I was angry — but, when I listened to the reaction of those who lost loved ones, my heart broke for them. Brenda Doherty's mother, Ruth Burke, was the first local woman to die from COVID-19 here. Speaking on 'Good Morning Ulster' after the latest inquiry findings, her reaction and her call were clear:

"I need you to be leaders. I don't care about orange and green. I care about the fact that I want to save lives. No matter what happens in the future, we cannot bring the past in to pollute the present or the future."

That is wisdom and clarity from a place of grief. Her grief — her story — is one of thousands. Families have empty seats at the table because our politics failed them when they needed leadership most. That is why the report must be a tipping point.

It is absolutely intolerable that anyone in the Assembly could look at the evidence, especially the abuse of cross-community voting, and still argue that the current institutional arrangements are fine as they are. If, when an independent inquiry has shown that lives may have been lost because decision-making was paralysed by political disputes, the DUP and Sinn Féin are not willing to accept the need for reform, we must ask whether those parties are capable of change at all. Maybe I should stop being surprised by that, because those are the parties that were willing to collapse the Government here for years and watch as our public services deteriorated. Even to me, however, the inquiry report feels different. It cuts through every excuse, every deflection; it shows us, in black and white, that party politics were prioritised over public safety.

I am a member of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, and we continue to take evidence on reform of the institutions. Experts and academics tell us that the public want to see reform. They tell us what could be done and how it could be done, but it feels as though some parties on that Committee just simply dance around the issues. The DUP will not engage with the thought of changing anything while it has a veto. Sinn Féin talks about being open to reform; I welcome that, and I am keen to understand what kind of reform they will support. Those of us who want to see change know that nothing can be done without those parties.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

Michelle Guy (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

No, I will not give way.

The motion calls on the Secretary of State to convene a reform process, but we should do that ourselves. If we cannot do so, we must take the conversation to the public through a citizens' assembly. Let me be clear: a citizens' assembly is not a new institution. It does not mean outsourcing our responsibilities. It is a proven model for serious, structured, civic engagement. It brings together a representative group of citizens to examine reform proposals in depth and to provide evidence-based recommendations. It strengthens political decision-making; it does not replace it.

We cannot undo the pain of the pandemic — we cannot give families back the people whom they lost — but we can learn from what went wrong. We can build institutions that serve the common good, not party interest. We can create an Executive that cannot be collapsed at the whim of one party. It is our responsibility to meet the moment and to show that the Assembly has the will and the maturity to act for all our people. It is our duty to honour those who were failed, by ensuring that those mistakes are never, ever repeated.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

As we speak today about the COVID inquiry's findings, we must begin with the most catastrophic failure of leadership. That failure of leadership brought an end to the public paying attention to anything that the Executive had to say about the health messaging around COVID restrictions. That breaking point came for many on the day of the Bobby Storey funeral. How could any party bring a motion to the House on the failures that the COVID inquiry exposed without making a single direct reference to the shameful spectacle that was put on for all to see?

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for giving way. Will he agree that what is really telling is that we have now had two Members from Alliance to speak and neither of them mentioned that?

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Neither one of them mentioned the Bobby Storey funeral, and that is telling and there for all to see.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I will maybe think about it later on. Two Alliance Members have already spoken; you have missed your opportunity.

If one moment crystallises the failures that were identified in module 2 of the inquiry, it was that day. While the people of Northern Ireland were burying their dead — their loved ones — alone, and while families could not come together and restrictions were still being enforced on ordinary people, senior members of Sinn Féin, including the current First Minister, flouted the law in broad daylight. They did so deliberately and without consequence, and they should never be allowed to forget the hurt and pain that they caused to many families right across Northern Ireland. Today, we still have no accountability, no resignations and no genuine remorse other than from one Member who travelled to the funeral in their Executive limo.

Sinn Féin behaved as though the rules did not apply to it. The evidence suggests that it was right, because nothing has happened. That is a consequence of the peace process. The COVID inquiry states plainly that the Executive's response was undermined by political dysfunction, rule-breaking and a failure among Ministers to put public interest above party interest. Yet, astonishingly, the motion, tabled by Alliance, tries to airbrush that reality by making it sound as though certain parties were uniquely responsible while others were perfect models of moral excellence.

The motion rewrites the inquiry for political convenience. It tries to narrow the scope and blame only the two largest parties. That phrase does not occur in the report. It was the Executive, of which Alliance was part, that failed the people of Northern Ireland. It was the Belfast Agreement that produced a system in which all Executive parties are trapped in structures that reward vetoes and political theatre. The dysfunction is not selective; it is structural. What the Alliance Party cannot escape is this: the system that failed us during COVID is a system that it championed, defended, supported and still clings to, as its two ministerial posts and the trappings that come with them are more important than the accountability and reform that it talks about.

We have a system in which a single party can collapse the Executive at will. Ministers can act without collective responsibility. No sanction is applied when rules are broken. Accountability evaporates the moment that party political convenience demands it. Who helped to deliver and sustain that system? The Alliance Party.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

Will the Member give way?

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I am happy to give way, but briefly.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

Thank you very much. The Member talks about reform, but, in the previous mandate, Alliance, alongside his predecessor, Jim Allister, worked on AERC to have the report on reform brought to the House. Have you read that?

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Where is it? What have you achieved? What has your mandate produced? Nothing. We are still where we are here today.

The Storey funeral scandal was not only a disgrace from Sinn Féin but a case study in how the Belfast Agreement, the flawed institutions and their design make accountability optional.

The rules were broken, the police investigation became political theatre, and the system — this very system — made sure that nothing happened.

The motion attempts to rewrite the COVID inquiry to absolve the Alliance Party and direct attention away from its role in propping up this broken system. The people of Northern Ireland deserve better than a system that allows rule-breakers to walk away untouched. They deserve better than motions designed to protect political friends and narrow the blame to suit political and party narratives. They deserve institutions that work, and, quite frankly, the people of Northern Ireland simply do not have them.

The House must be honest. The Storey funeral scandal showed us that the system is broken. Sinn Féin's behaviour showed us that it is still unfit for office. The Alliance motion shows us that political convenience still trumps honesty.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I support the motion and the amendment. As somebody who sat in the House and on the Health Committee during COVID, I think that there is a lot of amnesia and that there has been a lot of rewriting of the history of that, no doubt, turbulent and difficult period by Members to my right, in particular those in the DUP.

The COVID-19 inquiry told us that our local institutions failed and that political disputes trumped the public good and what was good for people's health. However, what the inquiry did not say loudly enough is that that was entirely predictable to anyone who watches this place, at present or in the past. While thousands of people died, often alone, and were denied the company of loved ones to comfort them, our political system was paralysed by sectarian vetoes and political point-scoring.

Working-class communities bore the brunt of that failure. They could not access adequate healthcare then, and tens and hundreds of thousands still cannot today. They faced impossible choices between following restrictions and putting food on the table, and they watched as those who made the rules broke them without consequence.

Our institutions are fundamentally built on a foundation that incentivises division. When the crisis hit, we saw the consequences: people died alone in hospitals, while Ministers played political games and let the virus flow and grow. Families were denied funerals for their loved ones. My grandmother died of COVID in 2022 because, in part, she could not get a care package and was forced to stay in hospital. We were lucky to have a small funeral for her, but we were denied a wake, which is so important to many families. Many families did not get a funeral at all, while the Executive lurched from one chaotic meeting to the next, leaking like a sieve.

This is not just about COVID; it is about a system that cannot deliver on housing, that watches our health service collapse and that fiddles while Lough Neagh and Belfast lough turn toxic. It is a system where "transformation" means another unfunded strategy document gathering dust and where an aspirational, non-binding Programme for Government exists.

Fifty-eight per cent of people who responded to the life and times survey said that they want reform, and 79% said that they think that the Assembly had achieved little or nothing. They are absolutely right; they are not wrong. People see MLAs whose votes do not count equally, depending on which box they tick when they take their seat in this place. They see a political class that is more interested in looking after wealthy and vested interests than building houses or treating the sick. Reform is not optional; it is absolutely essential. Reform must serve working-class communities across the board and not just tinker with mechanisms that protect elite and well-connected interests. We need institutions that can act decisively in emergencies, and we need accountability mechanisms that work.

Citizens' assemblies could — I emphasise "could" — provide a democratic mandate for change. However, let us be honest: reforms in this Building and even talking about them threaten those who benefit from dysfunction. That is why previous attempts have failed and why Mr Buckley and others are dead set against them. Here is the terrifying reality: we are no better prepared for the next pandemic than we were for the last. It would be foolish to say when there will be another, but there is no doubt that, at some time, one will come round the corner.

The COVID inquiry's recommendations have not been fully implemented, as has been stated. We still lack robust emergency planning structures. Our healthcare system remains fragile and underfunded, with a gap of thousands of health and social care workers. The cross-departmental coordination needed for a pandemic response is totally absent; it is non-existent. When — not if — a public health emergency strikes, we risk repeating the same catastrophic failures that cost thousands of lives. That is totally unconscionable, but preventable. People deserve institutions that work for them, not against them. They deserve a Government that can respond quickly and effectively to emergencies, not one that is tied to the internal dysfunction of Westminster during a public health crisis.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I call Sinéad McLaughlin to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. You have up to five minutes.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. If ever a debate personified the dysfunctionality of these institutions, it is the debate that we have heard over the past hour. People deserve better.

As we close the debate, I bring the focus back to the people who lived through the worst days of the pandemic. Too often, discussions like this become abstract. For many families, the COVID inquiry's findings go to the heart of their personal grief. They are people across the North who have lost loved ones, without being able to hold their hand or sit beside their bed; families who said goodbye through windows; people who were denied the chance to give their relatives a proper funeral, while others in positions of power ignored the rules. It was disgusting. Those wounds have not healed, and they may never fully heal. The inquiry has put in writing what so many already knew: the Executive did not function as they should have. Divisions, delays and political disputes shaped decisions at a time when leadership should have been steady, united and dignified. That failure had consequences. It caused confusion, weakened public confidence and left people more vulnerable than they ever should have been.

We cannot talk about moving forward unless we are honest about what went wrong, and we must also be honest about where things stand today. The dysfunction that was highlighted by the inquiry did not vanish when the pandemic ended. We continue to see gridlock on issues that should command agreement. The childcare strategy has sat unresolved for almost a month in the Executive, and, repeatedly, key strategies on investment, climate and public services struggle to get through the Executive. Even Ministers are acknowledging the extent of that backlog. Those delays have real effects. Families who are waiting for childcare support cannot put their lives on pause, workers need certainty, businesses need decisions and communities need a Government that set priorities and follow through. The public can see that the system is still under strain. Nothing has changed. "Negative vetoes" was even given an outing this week. Many feel that this place is not delivering what was promised and, when frustration builds, confidence in the institutions weakens further. Our amendment simply recognises the obvious: reform was not placed at the centre of the Programme for Government, and avoiding it has contributed to continued instability.

This is not about pointing fingers. It is about accepting that, without meaningful, structural change, the problems highlighted by the inquiry will not go away. Reform is not an academic exercise. It is about making sure that the decision-making is dependable, that crisis responses do not collapse under political tension and that the Executive can work collectively on challenges that affect every family. To be honest, the public do not trust us. The two main parties — Sinn Féin and the DUP — lost the changing room during COVID.

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

Will the Member give way?

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Yes.

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

We hold every party here to account. Mr Frew talked about "a zombie Assembly" during COVID, but his party then collapsed the Assembly for two years after that. How much more "zombie" can you get?

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Member has an extra minute.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Furthermore, if the institutions had not been collapsed for the two years prior to COVID, maybe we would have been more prepared. The institutions need reform. The inquiry, and what it outlined in its report, said that very clearly. Does anybody here believe that, if it happened tomorrow, we would be any more prepared? We would not. We have a duty to every constituent whom we serve. We are their servants. We have a duty to reform these institutions and to take the inquiry as seriously as possible.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The SDLP has put forward proposals to equalise the titles of First Minister and deputy First Minister, improve how the Speaker is selected and create stronger requirements for Departments to cooperate. Those modest but important changes will help to create more stability and reduce the opportunities for political brinkmanship. At its core, it is about restoring trust. People need to know that their Government can act together when it matters most. They need confidence that the lessons have been taken seriously, and they deserve institutions that are built around the needs of the public not the internal politics of one party.

The inquiry has given us a clear picture of what happens when systems fail and leadership falters.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

We have a responsibility to learn from and act on that.

Mr Buckley, I have heard enough from you today and yesterday.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

If reform is pushed aside again, we should not be surprised if instability continues and public confidence continues to drift.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I support the motion and our amendment, which will strengthen it. More importantly, I support the people who lived through the consequences of the failures that are outlined in the report. They deserve a Government that have learned from the past and are willing to make the changes needed to prevent it from happening in the future.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Time is up.

I give a gentle reminder to Members that they should not persist in asking a Member to give way when the Member clearly will not do so, nor should they speak over the Member who has not given way, Mr Frew.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

[Inaudible]

did it today and yesterday.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Thank you.

I call Eóin Tennyson to conclude the debate on the motion and make a winding-up speech. You have up to 10 minutes.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. In closing the debate, first, I pay a heartfelt tribute to those whose lives were irrevocably changed by the pandemic; to the families who lost loved ones, often without a chance to say goodbye, we hold you in our thoughts today; to those whose lives and livelihoods were upended, we acknowledge your resilience in the face of hardship; and to those front-line workers — our doctors, nurses, carers and key staff — who went above and beyond in a time of crisis, we owe you a debt of gratitude that can never truly be repaid. Given that neither the First Minister nor the deputy First Minister has said it — at least, not jointly — I will: I am sorry, and I am embarrassed by the way that the institutions operated during that period. All those people deserved better from the House. It is the experiences, the sacrifices and the voices of those who bore the greatest cost that must be at the heart of the discussions as we reflect on the pandemic, chart a way forward and prepare for the future.

COVID-19 was, in every sense, unprecedented. No event in living memory has reshaped our lives so suddenly, profoundly and universally. Mr Buckley said that every Government struggled; I agree with him. No Administration emerged from the crisis without mistakes to acknowledge or lessons to learn, and it would be wrong to pretend otherwise. However, the findings that relate to the Northern Ireland Executive in particular are stark.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I appreciate the Member's giving way. No Government handled the pandemic brilliantly, but does he agree that other countries handled it in a much better way, including countries in Southeast Asia that prioritised public health over opening businesses at any cost and letting the virus run rampant through communities? Does the Member agree with that point in a general sense?

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

There is a balance to be struck between the economy and health. Various models operated across the world, and we are still analysing their impact. It would be wrong for me to prejudge that at this stage, when the inquiry has not entirely concluded.

I can understand why the DUP's attacks on the Alliance Party are so vociferous today. The DUP led the Executive during the pandemic as the largest party, and some of the most stinging criticism is reserved for the two largest parties in the Executive at that time. Do not just take my word for that; the inquiry described decision-making in the Executive as "chaotic" and marred by political disputes, and it found that, at critical junctures, Ministers from the DUP and Sinn Féin:

"failed to put the common interest of all people in Northern Ireland above their party political interests."

It is a damning indictment that, even in the face of a global pandemic, when our people and public services were on their knees, the institutions descended into more chaos and dysfunction.

It is true that the political vacuum created by Sinn Féin's boycott of the Assembly between 2017 and 2020, right before the onset of the pandemic, weakened preparedness, damaged public services and contributed to a chaotic response. It is equally true that, as the pandemic progressed, and when the public were asked to make some of the most difficult sacrifices, the actions of some Sinn Féin Ministers who broke the rules undermined public confidence and deepened the hurt of families who had been denied the very same opportunity to have a funeral and grieve their loved ones.

We saw Ministers seeking to sectarianise the virus, with a DUP Minister claiming that one section of our community was spreading COVID more than others. That rhetoric was reckless and corrosive at a time when clarity and unity were so desperately needed. Of course, those were not just failures of leadership, integrity or preparedness, but failures of the current power-sharing structures. Baroness Hallett was clear in her report that the abuse of cross-community votes resulted in dysfunctional decision-making and undermined the ability of the Executive to respond effectively. At the height of the pandemic, sectarian vetoes were being thrown around the Executive like confetti. That led to there being gridlock in one Executive meeting for four days, when swift and decisive action was so desperately needed to protect lives.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

No, I will not.

COVID did not discriminate between nationalists and unionists. It struck indiscriminately and demanded a united response. The sheer folly of DUP Ministers deploying a cross-community vote against a fellow unionist Health Minister was not only farcical but exposed just how warped the so-called cross-community mechanisms in the Chamber had become.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

No, I will not.

Whether it is those making the rules in the Executive breaking them outside of the Executive, or those abuses of rules in the Executive to block vital public health measures, the people of Northern Ireland deserve better.

Those displays of division and dysfunction are not the preserve of times of global crisis. Since the pandemic, we have experienced yet another walkout of the Executive, this time by the DUP. Then, just this week, we saw the petition of concern deployed on the Floor. In previous mandates, we have seen those mechanisms being used and abused to prevent accountability, frustrate the rights of LGBTQ+ people in our society and frustrate the democratic will of the Assembly. Those shameful abuses are a perversion of democracy, and the displays of arrogance that often accompany them have contributed directly to the collapse of the institutions in previous mandates. Therefore, we all have to learn lessons about where this show inevitably ends.

It is long past time that we had a system of government that prioritised the interests of the people whom we represent ahead of the interests of the DUP and Sinn Féin. The current system of up-down, stop-start government and ransom politics needs to end. No single party should have the ability to hold decision-making in the Executive or the Executive itself to ransom. I am weary of successive UK Governments telling Alliance that we have won the academic argument on reform because this is not merely an academic exercise. Failure to act is ruining lives, eroding public confidence and jeopardising the Good Friday Agreement. If the institutions cannot deliver, or, worse, are allowed to collapse once again by those who poke and prod one another across the Chamber in sham fights, I fear that devolution will not return. By pandering to those who upend the institutions or block progress, the Secretary of State is not only rewarding bad behaviour but condemning devolution to death by a thousand collapses.

To argue for reform is not to undermine or reject the Good Friday Agreement. It is simply to acknowledge that, with the passage of time and the changes in our society — evidenced not least by the growth of this party — and with the benefit of hindsight, having tested the structures in practice — in some cases, almost to the point of destruction — there is room for change and, indeed, change is a necessity. Our proposals are consistent with the Good Friday Agreement. The principles of power-sharing, inclusion, interdependence and respect are necessary if we are to realise those ambitions and those principles —.

A Member

Will the Member give way?

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

No, I will not give way because I do not have time.

Our proposals enshrine the right of parties to be in government based on the strength of their mandates but remove the right of any single party to exclude everybody else from government, as is currently the case. They would not remove cross-community consent, but they would remove parallel consent as a measure of that cross-community support. Ironically, cross-community votes, as they are currently structured in the Assembly, are the least cross-community votes that can happen, because they exclude the voices of genuinely cross-community parties like the Alliance Party. Instead, weighted majority voting would enshrine cross-community protection whilst incentivising cooperation and genuine equality in the way that the Assembly operates, rather than the mutually enforced sectarian vetoes that have not done so and cannot do so.

There can be no more time for prevarication. The Secretary of State has said that the issue is in the hands of the local parties, just as the Good Friday Agreement was. That is not true. Without an active and engaged Secretary of State and Irish Government pushing the parties in the right direction, we would never have achieved the Good Friday Agreement. Many of the people out there who were horrified by the COVID inquiry report — they will be equally horrified, I might say, by some of the contributions to this debate — are looking for hope. We have an opportunity to give that to them today by, for the first time as an Assembly, calling on the Secretary of State to convene a reform process that enables us to move beyond what passes for politics in Stormont at the moment and beyond a power carve-up to true power-sharing so that we can finally deliver a form of government that represents everyone and delivers for everyone. I commend the motion to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Assembly divided:

Ayes 41; Noes 32

AYES

Ms K Armstrong, Mr Baker, Mr Boylan, Mr Carroll, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Mrs Dillon, Miss Dolan, Mr Donnelly, Mr Durkan, Ms Egan, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Mrs Guy, Miss Hargey, Mr Honeyford, Ms Hunter, Ms Kimmins, Mr McAleer, Miss McAllister, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McNulty, Mrs Mason, Mr Mathison, Mr Muir, Ms Mulholland, Ms Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Ms Nicholl, Mr O'Dowd, Mr O'Toole, Ms Reilly, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Mr Tennyson

Tellers for the Ayes: Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath

NOES

Dr Aiken, Ms D Armstrong, Mr Beattie, Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mr Burrows, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mrs Erskine, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Gaston, Mr Harvey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Martin, Mr Middleton, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Robinson, Mr Stewart

Tellers for the Noes: Mr Buckley, Mr Frew

Mr Clarke acted as a proxy for Mrs Erskine.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three minutes and move straight to a Division.

The Assembly divided:

Ayes 41; Noes 31

AYES

Ms K Armstrong, Mr Baker, Mr Boylan, Mr Carroll, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Mrs Dillon, Miss Dolan, Mr Donnelly, Mr Durkan, Ms Egan, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Mrs Guy, Miss Hargey, Mr Honeyford, Ms Hunter, Ms Kimmins, Mr McAleer, Miss McAllister, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McNulty, Mrs Mason, Mr Mathison, Mr Muir, Ms Mulholland, Ms Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Ms Nicholl, Mr O'Dowd, Mr O'Toole, Ms Reilly, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Mr Tennyson

Tellers for the Ayes: Ms K Armstrong, Mr Honeyford

NOES

Dr Aiken, Ms D Armstrong, Mr Beattie, Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Mr Burrows, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mrs Erskine, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Gaston, Mr Harvey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Martin, Mr Middleton, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Robinson, Mr Stewart

Tellers for the Noes: Mr Buckley, Mr Frew

Mr Clarke acted as a proxy for Mrs Erskine.

Main Question, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly notes with grave concern the findings of module 2 of the UK COVID-19 inquiry report, including that the current institutional structures weakened the ability of the Executive to respond during a global emergency and that decision-making was marred by political disputes; regrets that, at certain critical points during the pandemic, Ministers from the two largest parties failed to put the common interest of all the people of Northern Ireland above their party political interests; condemns the inappropriate use of cross-community votes within the Executive and the breaking of rules by Ministers; resolves that that dysfunction in decision-making must never be repeated; believes that no single party should ever again have the ability to hold decision-making in the Executive, or the Executive themselves, to ransom; laments the failure by Executive parties to adopt institutional reform as a priority within the Programme for Government; accepts that that missed opportunity has contributed to continued political instability and a loss of public confidence; and calls on the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to convene a process of institutional reform, in consultation with the Irish Government and local parties, without further delay.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Members may take their ease before we move to the next item in the Order Paper.

(Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair)

Ministerial Statement

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Speaker has received notice from the Minister of Finance that he wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that they must be concise in asking their question. Without further ado, I call the Minister.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Thank you for the opportunity to update Members on the 2025-26 December monitoring round, which was agreed by the Executive earlier today. Reaching that decision as soon as possible following the autumn Budget was essential to provide Departments with the certainty that they need to plan and deliver. That was particularly important, given the magnitude of the capital funding allocations that we are in a position to make to allow investment in vital infrastructure.

Looking now — I think that it is time for the glasses — at the funding available for allocation, following the autumn Budget, the Executive had the following available for allocation: £111·2 million resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL); £162 million capital DEL; £16·8 million financial transactions capital (FTC) DEL; and £0·9 million ring-fenced resource DEL.

Turning first to resource DEL, I will begin by addressing a prior commitment made by the Executive as part of June monitoring. The Executive agreed that the Department of Justice would have first call of up to £7 million towards PSNI workforce recovery costs, recognising the importance of investing in our police workforce. That funding is now being allocated in full.

On 16 October, the Executive agreed that the Departments of Health, Education, Justice and Infrastructure would have first call on available funding of up to £150·4 million in total for pay awards. No other resource bids were sought from Departments. Instead, the focus was on working towards meeting those previous commitments to ensure that public-sector workers receive the pay that they deserve.

The autumn Budget delivered just £18·8 million in additional Barnett consequentials this year. Combined with reduced requirements from Departments, that meant that the Executive had £104·2 million of available funding to allocate. In line with the prior commitment to public-sector pay, the Executive have therefore agreed that the funding available will be provided across the four Departments earmarked for pay. That represents a significant step towards supporting pay award costs for health workers, police, teachers and infrastructure workers. The Department of Health will receive an allocation of £69·3 million for the Health and Social Care (HSC) pay award. The Department of Education will receive £25·6 million for teachers' pay. The Department of Justice will receive £4·6 million for the PSNI pay award. The Department for Infrastructure will receive £4·6 million for pay awards.

I understand that the additional funding provided in the December monitoring round will allow the Minister of Justice to work with the Chief Constable on delivering police pay recommendations. The ministerial direction agreed by the Executive for health workers' pay parity will ensure that there is no delay in the implementation of the award to health workers. Today's allocation demonstrates the priority that the Executive and I attach to our vital public-sector workers and our desire to support public-sector pay despite the financial constraints that we face.

I have asked all Ministers to endeavour to find further efficiencies to help to fund the pressures that are facing Departments. I have also committed that, should any further Barnett consequentials arise from the Westminster Estimates in January, I will move quickly to bring recommendations to the Executive to allocate that funding towards those costs.

Moving to capital DEL, the Executive have agreed allocations of £162 million targeting key priorities across social and affordable housing, education, health and infrastructure. The Department for Communities will receive £42·4 million. That includes £29·8 million to meet in full its bid for the social housing development programme. That investment will be a major contribution to the Executive's Programme for Government (PFG) target of providing more social, affordable and sustainable housing. That investment and others that I am announcing today will be a huge boost to the construction industry and the local economy by sustaining and creating jobs. There is £8·6 million for the cladding safety scheme, which will ensure that residents live in buildings that have the necessary building safety standards, and £4 million for priority adaptations to Housing Executive properties for tenants living with a disability.

The Department for the Economy will receive £12·6 million to provide strategic support for higher education research and essential works in further education colleges, investing in skills and innovation for the future.

The Department of Education will receive £22 million, which includes £5·2 million for essential school maintenance; £3·2 million for schools' minor works and energy-saving solutions; £6·7 million for business-critical ICT pressures; £1 million for ICT infrastructure contractual commitments; and £6 million for Irish-medium accommodation and facilities.

The Department of Health will receive £25·2 million, recognising our commitment to investing in our health service and supporting bids to modernise it. Allocations include £19·7 million for IT equipment and £5·5 million to tackle significant backlog maintenance across the health estate.

Finally, the Department for Infrastructure will receive £59·8 million, which will fund £34·1 million for waste water services, public transport, rail and road projects and ensuring that the Department can maximise the delivery of capital projects to meet statutory obligations; £13·2 million for road maintenance and safety improvements; £4·1 million for drinking water infrastructure, which supports housing development as well as improving water quality; £5 million for new trains and track improvements to support the Enterprise cross-border service, which will enhance connectivity on the island of Ireland on the cross-border rail corridor between Belfast and Dublin; £2 million for street lighting, contributing to safer environments and encouraging more active travel; and £1·5 million for the A26 Glarryford Lands Tribunal case.

The Executive also agreed a central allocation of £0·027 million capital DEL to the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs for the city and growth deals complementary fund.

On financial transactions capital DEL, the Executive have allocated £2·5 million to the Department for the Economy for Invest NI to support businesses and encourage innovation, as well as £1·5 million to the Executive Office for capitalised loan interest. Following those allocations, there remains £12·8 million of FTC to be allocated. I have encouraged all Ministers to explore further opportunities for utilising FTC in the remainder of this financial year. Full details of all the allocations that have been made are set out in the tables accompanying the statement.

Ring-fenced resource DEL can be used only for non-cash costs relating to depreciation and impairments. Given that only £0·9 million was available for allocation, no allocations have been made in this round. Should funding become available at Westminster Estimates, it will be allocated in line with the bids set out in the tables accompanying the statement. To increase transparency, the statement is also accompanied by tables outlining the detail of changes to departmental budgets. Included under "Technical Adjustments" are Treasury-earmarked funding for city and growth deals and budget cover transfers from Whitehall Departments. In total, those amount to £11·6 million resource DEL and £26·6 million capital DEL.

The allocations made today reflect our determination as an Executive to deliver tangible change across a wide range of public services and utilities. Despite the highly constrained financial environment, we continue to invest in our workers and public services. The allocations agreed will make a positive difference to citizens' lives across society. Much-needed funding is being provided towards public-sector pay awards. Reflecting our key priorities in the Programme for Government, capital allocations have been made to enable the delivery of new social housing. We are also investing in our schools estate, further education colleges and higher education institutions, reflecting our commitment to supporting learning and delivering investment in skills. We have also agreed funding for infrastructure, which is critical to sustainable economic growth and connectivity, with allocations for key projects in water, roads and rail.

Following the conclusion of the December monitoring round, my next step will be to bring the multi-year Budget to the Executive. The multi-year Budget will give Departments the certainty they need to plan on a longer-term and more strategic basis and to transform our public services for the years ahead.

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

Thank you, Minister. Many of the allocations will, of course, be welcome — they always are — but surely you must acknowledge that this monitoring round is an example of criminal financial mismanagement. We are three months from the end of the financial year. Despite everything that you say about not getting enough money from London — you are right about that in many cases — the Executive are underspending their capital budget by £0·25 billion three months from the end of the financial year. There is mismanagement of the A5, Casement Park and the maternity and children's hospitals, and £0·25 million will have to be handed back. We need a multi-year Budget to fix those problems. When will a multi-year Budget be delivered to help us move away from this monitoring round chaos?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I think the Member referred to "criminal negligence" — was it?

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

Mismanagement.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Criminal mismanagement. If the Member has any evidence of criminal mismanagement, he should bring it forward. It sounds to me like a very serious accusation for the leader of the Opposition to make. If the leader of the Opposition has any evidence to back that up, the leader of the Opposition should come forward with it.

It has become Matthew's job to be the dark cloud over the Executive. No matter what you come forward with, Matthew will find fault with it; he will direct a negative agenda towards it; and he will attempt to get a headline that is as dramatic as possible and runs down the efforts of the Executive, the Assembly and public-sector workers to improve the daily lives of the people whom we all serve. The fact of the matter is that, today, despite all your suggestions in the Chamber yesterday, the Executive agreed almost £300 million of funding for front-line public services that will improve the lives of the citizens whom we all serve. Despite your, perhaps, wishing overnight with your fingers crossed, the Executive agreed that this morning, and we will now move on to the multi-year Budget.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

Thank you for the statement, Minister. As outlined, £250 million, including £162 million of capital, was returned and reallocated in December this year. It is late in the year. I very much welcome the allocation to the Department for Communities for social housing, which is a key priority in the Programme for Government. However, had that been reallocated earlier, the Communities Minister would have been able to hit the 1,950 housing target. He is keen to deliver 1,750, and I am confident that he will. Can lessons be learned about how we can reallocate funding earlier, as soon as it becomes available, to meet those targets?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

It is worth remembering that the Chancellor's autumn Budget was probably four weeks later this year than it usually is because of needs in Westminster and elsewhere. We were operating four weeks behind the usual time frame. While a significant proportion of the funding has been returned from the A5 and other sectors — the A5 is beyond our control at this stage because of legal challenges; legal deliberations on it are taking place today — the Departments have to improve how they deliver capital projects. I am not arguing against that, but we allocated the money to all Departments as soon as it was practically possible. I welcome the fact that we have increased and will significantly increase the delivery of social housing as we move forward.

I mentioned in my statement that there would be a further fiscal event at Westminster: the Estimates in January. Some small amounts of capital may come from that, and we will again allocate those to Departments that can spend them in the time frame in which we are able to do so. The multi-year Budget will allow us to plan much better the delivery of major capital projects, which will mean that less capital comes to the centre. At the end of the day, this money today is going to projects that are worthy and needed and would not have been delivered otherwise.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

With a little indulgence, I will pay tribute to Willie Irwin, my constituency colleague, and recognise his contribution to politics and to the people of Newry and Armagh. I wish him well in his retirement.

Turning to the Minister's statement, will the Minister provide more detail on the funding for infrastructure?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I, too, pay tribute to Willie. I do not think that he is in the Chamber, but I understand that he is stepping down from this place — the lucky duck — so he is moving on to other things.

We have made a significant investment in the Department for Infrastructure, covering a wide range of areas, including water services, public transport, road maintenance, drinking water infrastructure and trains and infrastructure for the Belfast-Dublin Enterprise service. It is about funding that has become available being reinvested in front-line public services and making a real difference to people's lives. Water infrastructure and waste water infrastructure are, understandably, often debated in the Chamber and elsewhere, but the further investment in that will allow more businesses and more homes to be connected to water and waste water services.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for his statement, and I welcome the funding that has been allocated. Minister, following the leaked exchange of letters between you and the Education Minister, how confident are you that the multi-year Budget will proceed at pace? Will those disagreements impede agreement on that?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

In most institutions, there will be tension between Ministers and the Finance Minister. It would be hugely surprising if other Ministers and I were not in correspondence and engaging with one another. The letters that were leaked to the media are an example of that. I am confident that all Ministers around the Executive table see the worthiness of a three-year Budget. I have no doubt that there will be some bartering and negotiations ahead of our getting an agreed draft Budget out to public consultation, but all Ministers see the benefit of having a three-year Budget, and, when they focus on those benefits, that will allow us to deliver a Budget for public consultation.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Minister, from doing my maths, I see that the health pay shortfall is now about £140 million, despite the £109 million overspend that you agreed with the Health Minister. The resource allocation in this monitoring round is far short of the £100 million that the Health Minister was told in October was available; that was reiterated in the media by the First Minister. Is Health really the priority of the Northern Ireland Executive?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The Executive have agreed a ministerial direction that authorises the Health Minister to proceed with the health workers' pay award. There should be no doubt in the Chamber that the health sector's pay award is going ahead.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Will the Minister provide more detail on the Irish-medium capital allocation?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

That is a welcome allocation of £6 million for Irish-medium education and for Iontaobhas na Gaelscolaíochta for the facilities that it provides to the Irish-medium sector. It is a significant investment, but I have no doubt that continued investment in that sector and others will be needed. That, again, shows the value of monitoring rounds, by which funding can be allocated to areas of need. Those areas of need can absorb that funding quickly.

Pam Cameron (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his important statement. Like my colleague, I very much welcome the fact that the bid for social homes was met. It is disappointing, however, that we cannot meet the target that every Minister signed up to and agreed in the housing supply strategy and the Programme for Government. Will the Finance Minister today show his commitment to social housing and confirm that future Budget bids will be met in full?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The final whistle has not blown on this financial year. At least one fiscal event is still to take place in Westminster, from which, I hope, the Executive will benefit, although I do not suggest that that will be by huge amounts. There may also be some reprioritisation of capital in the Executive's Budget. I will commit to working with all Ministers to ensure that that funding is spent where it can be delivered. If it can be delivered in social housing, I will have no difficulty in directing it towards social housing. As I said to Mr Tennyson, I have no doubt that there will be robust engagement and negotiations around the three-year Budget and that, if Ministers keep themselves focused on the need for a three-year Budget and the benefits that it will bring to all Departments, we will get it delivered.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for his statement. I welcome the prioritisation of staff, and particularly the fact that PSNI staff will get their pay rise. That is most definitely welcome.

Will the Executive continue to prioritise the police recovery plan in the multi-year Budget so that we can see our officer numbers increase?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I am on record saying that one of the recommendations that I will make as part of the multi-year Budget will be that the fund for the police recovery plan be supported and that we see a recovery in our police numbers. That is essential to delivering front-line public services, of which policing is one. It will also assist the police to recruit from across our community, ensuring that policing represents the community that it serves.

Jemma Dolan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I congratulate the Minister for his work on the matter. How will today's allocations support Programme for Government commitments?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

They will go across a range of areas. Social housing, which is one of those commitments, has been mentioned. Significant investment is going into bringing us towards the target for social housing. There has been other investment. If you look at infrastructure, for instance, you will see that allocations to that will allow us to develop more homes and connect more businesses. There are investments in further and higher education, such as investment in skills etc. That is a theme of the Programme for Government where our economy is concerned and for ensuring that we have a skilled workforce to further develop and support that economy.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

Like others, I welcome the statement and the recovery plan for the PSNI and the pay awards, which have been discussed. Minister, an opportunity that was not addressed in the statement is money for the data breach. Lots of officers are concerned about pay rises and data breach money. Do you foresee that being delivered before the end of the financial year? While I am on my feet, I will ask this: do you anticipate today's pay award being in their December pay packets?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The delivery of the pay award is down to the Justice Minister and the Chief Constable. I have no doubt that the Justice Minister will comment further on that later today.

My understanding is that legal engagement on the data breach will not conclude in this financial year. That will allow us to plan making payment on the data breach in the following financial year. That is the recommendation that I will make to my Executive colleagues. However, we continue to engage with the Treasury and others to urge them to allow the Assembly and the Executive access to the reserve claim. That goes to the highest levels of government, including the Prime Minister.